Skip to main content

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

See other formats


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.