DTIC ADA371034: Defense Base Realignment and Closure Budget Data for the Construction of a Multiple Purpose Facility at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
BUDGET DATA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A MULTIPLE PURPOSE FACILITY AT
FORT McCOY, WISCONSIN

Report No. 96-119

May 14, 1996

•X»X*!»X«t^X»l*X*Xw!*X*X»X

19991206 120

Department Of Defense

OoH

Additional Copies

To obtain additional copies of this audit report, contact the Secondary Reports
Distribution Unit of the Analysis, Planning, and Technical Support Directorate at
(703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or FAX (703) 604-8932.

Suggestions for Future Audits

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Planning and
Coordination Branch of the Analysis, Planning, and Technical Support Directorate
at (703) 604-8939 (DSN 664-8939) or FAX (703) 604-8932. Ideas and requests
can also be mailed to:

OAIG-AUD (ATTN: APTS Audit Suggestions)

Inspector General, Department of Defense
400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)

Arlington, Virginia 22202-2884

Defense Hotline

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling
(800) 424-9098; by sending an electronic message to Hotline@DODIG.OSD.MIL;
or by writing the Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-1900.
The identity of each writer and caller is fully protected.

Acronyms

BRAC

MILCON

Base Realignment and Closure
Military Construction

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-2884

May 14, 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER)

SUBJECT: Audit Report on Defense Base Realignment and Closure Budget Data for
the Construction of a Multiple Purpose Facility at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin
(Report No. 96-119)

We are providing this audit report for review and comment. This report is one
in a series of reports about FY 1997 Defense base realignment and closure military
construction costs. It discusses a project that was added to the FY 1996 budget too late
to be included in previous audit coverage. Comments from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) on a draft of this report were considered in preparing the final
report.

DoD Directive 7650.3 requires that all recommendations and potential monetary
benefits be resolved promptly. No written comments were received from the Navy;
therefore, the Navy is requested to provide comments on this final report that conform
to the requirements of DoD Directive 7650.3. We request that the Navy provide the
comments by June 14, 1996.

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. Questions on the audit
should be directed to Mr. Terry L- McKinney, Audit Program Director, at
(703) 604-9288 (DSN 664-9288) or Mr. Bruce A. Burton, Audit Project Manager, at
(703) 604-9282 (DSN 664-9282). See Appendix G for the report distribution. The
audit team members are listed inside the back cover.

David K. Steensma
Deputy Assistant Inspector General
For Auditing

Office of the Inspector General, DoD

Report No. 96-119 May 14,1996

(Project No. 6CG-5001.21)

Defense Base Realignment and Closure Budget Data for the
Construction of a Multiple Purpose Facility
at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

Executive Summary

Introduction. This report is one in a series of reports about FY 1997 Defense base
realignment and closure military construction costs. It discusses a project that was
added to the FY 1996 budget too late to be included in previous audit coverage. Public
Law 102-190, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993,"
December 5, 1991, directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the amount of the
authorization that DoD requested for each military construction project associated with
Defense base realignment and closure does not exceed the original estimated cost
provided to the Commission on Defense Base Closure and Realignment (the
Commission). If the requested budget amounts exceed the original project cost
estimates provided to the Commission, the Secretary of Defense is required to explain
to Congress the reasons for the differences. The Office of the Inspector General, DoD,
is required to review each Defense base realignment and closure military construction
project for which a significant difference exists from the original cost estimate and to
provide the results of the review to the congressional Defense committees. Our audits
include all projects valued at more than $1 million.

Audit Objectives. The overall audit objective was to determine the accuracy of
Defense base realignment and closure military construction budget data. This report
provides the results of the audit for the construction of a multiple purpose facility,
valued at $3.5 million, for the closure of Naval Air Station Glenview, Illinois, and
realignment of the 25th Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion to Fort McCoy,
Wisconsin.

Audit Results. The Navy did not accurately estimate the Defense base realignment
and closure military construction requirements and costs for the construction of the
multiple purpose facility at Fort McCoy. As a result, the project overstated
requirements and costs by $1.5 million.

See Part I for a discussion of the finding. See Appendix D for a summary of invalid
and partially valid requirements for the project we reviewed.

S ummar y of Recommendations. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) place funds on administrative withhold for the multiple purpose facility
until a revised DD Form 1391, "FY 1996 Military Construction Project Data," is
submitted reflecting valid requirements and costs. In addition, we recommend that the
Navy revise and resubmit the DD Form 1391 to reduce the cost of the project by
$1.5 million to reflect accurate requirements and costs.

Management Comments. We issued a draft of this report to management on
March 25, 1996. No written comments were received from the Navy. We request that
the Commander, Third Naval Construction Brigade, provide comments to the final
report by June 14, 1996. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) generally
agreed with the recommendations and placed the project on administrative withhold
pending resolution. A summary of management comments is in Part I, and the
complete text of management comments is in Part III of the report.

11

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Part I - Audit Results

Audit Background 2

Audit Objectives 2

Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Facilities 3

Part II - Additional Information

Appendix A. Scope and Methodology 8

Appendix B. Summary of Prior Audits and Other Reviews 9

Appendix C. Background of Defense Base Realignment and Closure
and Scope of the Audit of FY 1997 Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Military Construction Costs 10

Appendix D. Projects Identified as Invalid or Partially Valid 12

Appendix E. Recommended Space Occupancy 13

Appendix F. Organizations Visited or Contacted 14

Appendix G. Report Distribution 15

Part III - Management Comments

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Comments 18

Part I - Audit Results

1

Audit Results

Audit Background

The Office of the Inspector General, DoD, is performing various audits of the
Defense base realignment and closure (BRAG) process. This report is one in a
series of reports about FY 1997 BRAG militapry construction (MILGON) costs.
It discusses a project that was added to the FY 1996 budget too late to be
included in previous audit coverage. For additional information on the BRAG
process and the overall scope of the audit of BRAG MILGON costs, see
Appendix G. See Appendix D for a summary of invalid and partially valid
requirements for the project we reviewed.

Audit Objectives

The overall audit objective was to determine the accuracy of BRAG MILGON
budget data. The specific objectives were to determine whether the proposed
projects were valid BRAG requirements, whether the decision for MILGON was
supported with required documentation including an economic analysis, and
whether the economic analysis considered existing facilities. Another audit
objective was to assess the adequacy of the management control program as it
applied to the overall audit objective.

This report provides the results of the audit of project P-701T, "Equipment
Maintenance Facility," valued at $3.5 million, resulting from the closure of
Naval Air Station Glenview, Illinois, and realignment to Fort McGoy,
Wisconsin. See Appendix A for a discussion of the scope and methodology and
Appendix B for a summary of prior coverage related to the audit objectives.
The management control program objective will be discussed in a summary
report on FY 1997 BRAG MILGON budget data.

2

Reserve Naval Mobile Construction
Battalion Facilities

The Navy did not accurately estimate the BRAC MILCON requirements
and costs of project P-701T. The inaccurate estimates occurred because
the Navy:

o did not consider more cost-effective designs that the Army
already used at Fort McCoy for similar facilities,

0 overstated the requirement and unit cost for administrative
space, and

o did not adjust costs for relocation of the building site to an area
that required fewer supporting facilities.

As a result, the project, valued at $3.5 million, was overstated by
approximately $1.5 million.

BRAC Decision

The 1993 Commission on Defense Base Closure and Realignment recommended
that the Navy close Naval Air Station Glenview, Illinois. As a result, the 25th
Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion relocated to Fort McCoy,
Wisconsin. The Navy authorized $3.5 million of BRAC MILCON funds to
construct a building for the battalion at Fort McCoy.

The Navy did not accurately estimate the requirements and costs for
project P-701T, "Equipment Maintenance Facility," on the DD Form 1391,
"FY 1996 Military Construction Project Data," to construct a building
consisting of administrative, instructional, operational storage, and vehicle
maintenance spaces. The project also include supporting facilities costs for
utilities, fencing, and site improvements.

Similar Facilities

The Navy did not consider placing the battalion into several Army-designed
facilities at Fort McCoy, even though the Reserve Naval Mobile Construction
Battalion was located in several buildings at Naval Air Station Glenview. The
Navy proposed meeting the requirement for the entire battalion by constructing
one 20,685-square-foot facility. Included in the facility was 5,500 square feet

3

Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Facilities

of operational storage space and 5,000 square feet of vehicle maintenance space.
The estimated costs for those portions of the facility were $444,432 and
$652,600, respectively. The total cost for those two portions was estimated to
be $1,097,032.

The Army recently constructed two facilities, for $220,000 each, at Fort
McCoy that were similar in size (6,000 square feet) and use to those the Navy
requires for the vehicle maintenance and operational storage requirement. If the
Navy used that design for both requirements. Base Closure Account funds of
$657,032 ($1,097,032 minus $440,000) could have been put to better use.

Furthermore, the Navy could optimize the excess space in the Army-designed
buildings by placing the "A" company headquarters and operations area in the
vehicle maintenance facility because "A" company operates that facility. The
Navy had expressed interest in using those buildings for the same purposes upon
its arrival at Fort McCoy, but did not consider the option during construction
design.

Administrative Space

The Navy overstated the requirement and unit cost for administrative space by
$123,267 for its battalion headquarters component. In addition, the Navy
overstated the unit cost for administrative space for its "A" and "B" companies
headquarters components.

Battalion Headquarters Space. The Navy originally proposed that the
battalion headquarters occupy 6,240 square feet at a unit cost of $122.75 per
square foot, for a total cost of $765,960. Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Publication P-80, "Facility Planning Criteria for Navy and Marine
Corps Shore Installations," provides facility planning criteria for use in
computing quantitative facility requirements for Navy and Marine Coips
installations. The publication states that the maximum requirement for battalion
headquarters of a Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion is 5,700 square
feet. In addition, the unit cost for administrative space in the Fort McCoy area
is $113.14 per square foot. Applying that unit cost to 5,700 square feet, the
cost would be $644,898. Therefore, the Navy overstated administrative space
by 540 square feet (6,240 square feet minus 5,700 square feet) and a toti of
$121,062 ($765,960 minus $644,898).

"A” and "B" Companies Space. The Navy proposed to occupy 1,760 square
feet at a unit cost of $122.75 per square foot for the "A" and "B" companies
headquarters at a total cost of $216,040. However, the Navy requires an
additional 130 square feet for the "A" company headquarters, which results in
1,890 square feet for both companies. Applying the most current unit cost of
$113.14 per square foot to 1,890 square feet tot^s $213,835. Therefore, the
Navy understated administrative space by 130 square feet (1,760 square feet
plus 130 square feet) but overstated the cost of the "A" and "B" companies
administrative space % $2,205 ($216,040 minus $213,835).

4

Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Facilities

Reconunended Space Occupancy. We recommend construction of three
separate facilities instead of construction of one multiple purpose facility to
accomplish the requirement for project P-701T. See Appendix E for
recommended space occupancy.

Supporting Facilities

The Navy did not adjust costs for relocation of the building site to an area that
would require fewer supporting facilities. The original site for which the costs
were estimated for die DD Form 1391 was in a more remote part of Fort
McCoy, which required larger amounts of supporting facilities costs. However,
when the site was relocated to the main portion of Fort McCoy, the cost for
supporting facilities decreased from $802,000 to $220,000, a difference of
$582,000.

Summary

The Navy overstated the cost of project P-701T by approximately $1.5 million
because it did not consider using an Army-designed maintenance and storage
facility, overstated the requirement and unit cost of administrative space, and
did not adjust costs for relocation of the building site to an area that would
require fewer supporting facilities.

The table below shows original cost estimates and overstated amounts.

Summary of Original Costs and Overstated Amounts for Project P-701T

Description

Original

Costs

Overstated

Amounts

Operational storage

$ 444,432

$ 224,432

Vehicle maintenance

652,600

432,600

Administrative

Battalion Headquarters

765,960

121,062

Company Headquarters

216,040

2,205

Instructional

298,449

0

Supporting facilities

802,000

582,000

Contingency (5 percent)

159,000

68,141

Supervision, inspection and

overhead (6 percent)

200.000

85.518

Total

$3,538,481

$1,515,958

5

Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Facilities

Recommendations and Management Comments

1. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) place
funds for project P-701T, "Equipment Maintenance Facility," on
a dminis trative vrithhold until the Navy submits a revised DD Form 1391,
"FY1996 Military Construction Project Data," to accurately reflect
requirements and costs.

Management Comments. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
concurred with the recommendation, stating that the project was placed on
administrative withhold pending resolution. In addition, any savings resulting
from the audit would be reprogrammed to other BRAC requirements.

2. We recommend that the Commander, Third Naval Construction
Brigade,

a. Submit a revised DDForm 1391, "Equipment Maintenance
Facility," that reflects valid BRAC requirements and that accurately
reflects the revised design of the project, including revised square feet and
unit cost, and the reduced supporting facilities cost and

b. Reduce budget estimates by $1,515,958.

Management Comments. The Commander, Third Naval Construction
Brigade, did not respond to the draft of this report. We request that the
Commander, Third Naval Construction Brigade, provide comments on the final
report.

6

Part II - Additional Information

1

Appendix A. Scope and Methodology

Scope of This Audit. We examined the FY 1996 BRAC MILCON budget
request, economic analysis, and supporting documentation for space
requirements for one realignment project regarding the transfer of the
25th Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion from Naval Air Station
Glenview, Illinois, to Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Project P-701T, "Equipment
Maintenance Facility," is estimated to cost $3.5 million.

Audit Period, Standards, and Locations. This economy and efficiency audit
was made from January through February 1996 in accordance with auditing
standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States as
implemented by the Inspector General, DoD. The audit did not rely on
computer-processed data or statistical sampling procedures. Appendix F lists
the organizations visited or contacted during the audit.

8

Appendix B. Summary of Prior Audits and
Other Reviews

Since 1991, numerous audit reports have addressed DoD BRAC issues. This appendix
lists the summary reports for the audits of BRAC budget data for FYs 1992
through 1996 and BRAC audit reports published since the summary reports.

Inspector General, DoD

Report No.
96-112

96-108

96-104

96-101

96-093

94-040

93-100

Report Title

Date

Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Budget Data for the Closure of Naval Air
Station Cecil Field, Florida, and
Realignment of the Aviation Physiology
Training Unit to Naval Air Station
Jacksonville, Florida

Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Budget Data for the Naval Shipyard
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Budget Data for the Construction of the
Overwater Antenna Test Range Facility at
Newport, Rhode Island

Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Budget Data for the Closure of Naval Air
Station Barbers Point, Hawaii, and
Realignment of P-3 Aircraft Squadrons to
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island,
Washington

Draft of Summary Report on the Audit of
Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Budget Data for FYs 1995 and 1996

Summary Report on the Audit of Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Budget
Data for FYs 1993 and 1994

Summary Report on the Audit of Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Budget
Data for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993

May 7, 1996

May 6, 1996

April 26, 1996

April 26, 1996

April 3, 1996

February 14, 1994

May 25, 1993

9

Appendix C. Background of Defense Base
Realignment and Closure and Scope of the Audit
of FY 1997 Defense Base Realignment and
Closure Military Construction Costs

Cominission on Defense Base Closure and Realignment. On May 3, 1988,
the Secretary of Defense chartered the Commission on Defense Base Closure
and Realignment (the Commission) to recommend military installations for
realignment and closure. Congress passed Public Law 100-526, "Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act,"
October 24, 1988, which enacted the Commission's recommendations. The law
also established the Defense Base Closure Account to fund any necessary facility
renovation or MILCON projects associated with BRAC. Public Law 101-510,
"Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990," November 5, 1990,
reestablished the Commission. The law also chartered the Commission to meet
during calendar years 1991, 1993, and 1995 to verify that the process for
realigning and closing milit^ installations was timely and independent. In
addition, the law stipulates that realignment and closure actions must be
completed within 6 years after the President transmits the recommendations to
Congress.

Required Defense Reviews of BRAC Estimates. Public Law 102-190,
"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993,"
December 5, 1991, states that the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the
authorization amount that DoD requested for each MILCON project associated
with BRAC actions does not exceed the original estimated cost provided to the
Commission. Public Law 102-190 also states that the Inspector General, DoD,
must evaluate significant increases in BRAC MILCON project costs over the
estimated costs provided to the Commission and send a report to the
congressional Defense committees.

Military Department BRAC Cost-Estimating Process. To develop cost
estimates for the Commission, the Military Departments used the Cost of Base
Realignment Actions computer model. The Cost of Base Realignment Actions
computer model uses standard cost factors to convert the suggested BRAC
options into dollar values to provide a way to compare the different options.
After the President and Congress approve the BRAC actions, DoD realigning
activity officials prepare a DDForm 1391, "FY 1997 Military Construction
Project Data," for each individual MILCON project required to accomplish the
realigning actions. The Cost of Base Realignment Actions computer model
provides cost estimates as a realignment and closure package for a particular
realigning or closing base. The DD Form 1391 provides specific cost estimates
for an individual B^C MILCON project.

Limitations and Expansion to Overall Audit Scope. Because the Cost of
Base ResJignment Actions computer model develops cost estimates as a BRAC
package and not for individual BRAC MILCON projects, we were unable to
determine the amount of cost increases for each individual BRAC MILCON

10

Appendix C. Background of Defense Base Realignment and Closure and Scope of
the Audit of FY1997 Defense Base Realignment and Closure Military

Construction Costs

project. Additionally, because of prior audit efforts that determined potential
problems with all BRAC MILCON projects, our audit objectives included all
large BRAC MILCON projects.

Overall Audit Selection Process. We reviewed the FY 1997 BRAC MILCON
$820.8 million budget submitted by the Military Departments and the Defense
Logistics Agency. We excluded projects that were previously reviewed by DoD
audit organizations. We grouped the remaining BRAC MILCON projects by
location and selected groups of projects that totted at least $1 million for each
group. We also reviewed those FY 1996 BRAC MILCON projects that were
not included in the previous FY 1996 budget submission, but were added as part
of the FY 1997 BRAC MILCON budget package.

11

Appendix D. Projects Identified as Invalid or
Partially Valid

Table D-1. Causes of Invalid or Partially Valid Projects

Project

Project Location Number

Causes of
Invalid Projects
Overstated Unsupported

Causes of

Partially Valid Projects
Overstated Unsupported

Fort McCoy P-701T

X

Table D-2. Recommended Changes in Project Estimates

Amount of

Recommended Amount of Change

Estimate on

Invalid

Partially Valid

Project

DD Form 1391

Projects

Projects

Project Location

Number

fthousands)

('thousands')

('thousands')

Fort McCoy

P-701T

$3,500

$1,500

Total

$3,500

$1,500

Total Invalid and Partially Valid Projects

$1,500

12

Appendix E. Recommended Space Occupancy

The original Navy proposal was to have one 20,685-square-foot multiple
purpose facility, encompassing administrative, instructional, hazardous storage,
vehicle maintenance, and operational storage space.

We recommend construction of three separate facilities as an alternative for
project P-701T. Two facilities would be based on the Army-designed facility,
and the third facility would be an administrative facility.

Facility Size of Facility

Designation

Proposed Use of Space

("square feef)

Facility 1

Operational Storage

Hazardous Storage

5,500

225

5,725*

Facility 2

Vehicle Maintenance
"A" Company Headquarters

5,000

630

5,630

Facility 3

Battalion Headquarters
"B" Company Headquarters
Instructional Area

5,700

1,260

1,960

8,920

Total Area

20,275

*Using the Army design. Facilities 1 and 2 are 6,000 square feet each, for a
total of 12,000 square feet. As a result, if the design is used, the Navy will
have an extra 645 square feet (5,725 plus 5,630 equ^s 11,355 subtracted from
12 , 000 ).

13

Appendix F. Organizations Visited or Contacted

Department of the Army

Fort McCoy, Sparta, WI

Department of the Navy

Third Naval Construction Brigade, Pearl Harbor, HI

25th Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Batt^ion, Fort McCoy, WI
Naval Air Station, Glenview, IL
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA
Southern Division, Charleston, SC

14

Appendix G. Report Distribution

Office of the Secretary of Defense

Under Secreta^ of Defense (Comptroller)

Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Deputy Comptroller ^rogram/Budget)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Economic Security)
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations)
Assistant to the Secret^ of Defense (Public Affairs)
Director, Defense Logistics Studies Information Exchange

Department of the Army

Commander, Fort McCoy

Auditor General, Department of the Army

Department of the Navy

Assistant Secreta^ of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller)
Commander, Third Naval Construction Brigade
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Auditor General, Department of the Navy

Department of the Air Force

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller)
Auditor General, Department of the Air Force

Other Defense Organizations

Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency
Director, Defense Logistics Agency
Director, National Security Agency

Inspector General, National Security Agency
Inspector General, Defense Intelligence Agency

Non-Defense Federal Organizations and Individuals

Office of Management and Budget

Technical Information Center, National Security and International Affairs Division,
General Accounting Office

15

Appendix G. Report Distribution

Non-Defense Federal Organizations and Individuals (cont'd)

Chairman and ranking minority member of each of the following congressional
committees and subcommittees:

Senate Committee on Appropriations

Senate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations

Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, Committee on Appropriations

Senate Committee on Armed Services

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

House Committee on Appropriations

House Subcommittee on Military Construction, Committee on Appropriations
House Subcommittee on Nation^ Security, Committ^ on Appropriations
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House Committee on National Security

Honorable Russell Feingold, U.S. Senate

Honorable Herbert Kohl, U.S. Senate

Honorable Steven Gunderson, U.S. House of Representative

16

Part ni - Management Comments

n

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) Comments

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

11OO DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301*1100

COMPTROLLER \ 5 |996

(Program/Budget)

MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITING, DODIG

SUBJECT: Quick-Reaction on Defense Base Realignment and Closure Budget Data for the
Realignment of the Construction of a Multiple Purpose Facility at Fort McCoy,
Wisconsin (Project No. 6CG-5001.21)

This responds to your March 25,1996, memorandum requesting our comments on
subject report.

The audit recommends that the USD (Comptroller) place project P-701T, “Equipment
Maintenance Facility,” on administrative withhold until the Navy submits a revised DD 1391 form
that accurately reflects requirements and costs for the project.

We generally agree with the audit and reconunendations, however, since the Navy has not
officially commented on the audit and the amount of the savings has not been resolved, we will
place the project on administrative withhold pending resolution. Further, any savings resulting
from the audit will be reprogrammed to other BR AC requirements as appropriate.

B R PASEUR

DiaeCTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION

18

Audit Team Members

This report was prepared by the Contract Management Directorate, Office
of the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, DoD,

Paul J. Granetto
Terry L. McKinney
Bruce A. Burton
John A. Seger
Ana M. Myrie

INTERNET DOCUMENT INFORMATION FORM

A . Report Title: Defense Base Realignment and Closure Budget Data for
the Construction of A Multiple Purpose Facility at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

B. DATE Report Downloaded From the Internet: 12/03/99

C. Report's Point of Contact: (Name, Organization, Address, Office
Symbol, & Ph #): OAIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)

Inspector General, Department of Defense
400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)

Arlington, VA 22202-2884

D. Currently Applicable Classification Level; Unclassified

E. Distribution Statement A: Approved for Pubiic Release

F. The foregoing information was compiled and provided by:

DTIC-OCA, Initials;_^VM_Preparation Date 12/03/99

The foregoing information should exactly correspond to the Title, Report Number, and the Date on
the accompanying report document. If there are mismatches, or other questions, contact the
above OCA Representative for resolution.