Assessing Army Infrastructure Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management Assessing Army Infrastructure MG Ted Harrison Director of Operations Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management 29 February 2016

Current Facilities Environment Reduced SRM and MILCON investments since 2009 Drop in the percent of “Green” rated facilities from 76% to 70% Percent of “red” and “black” rated facilities is on the rise Degraded Army facilities hurt readiness and quality of life The Army is looking for cost effective opportunities to: Divest of its worst facilities; save operations and maintenance costs in the near-term Preserve its best facilities; meet contingency capabilities Balance the Installation footprint; align readiness requirements to physical assets

Army Military Value Analysis Model Developed by the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) and managed by HQDA G-3/5/7 Contributes to stationing decisions; evaluates installations based attributes within four operational categories: Training Power Projection Well Being Expansibility/Reversibility Each attribute score contributes to a total score for the installation The MVA informs the Army Senior Leadership’s decision-making process. Other factors considered outside the MVA include Strategic Considerations Cost and Efficiencies Readiness Mission Command Feasibility Environmental & Socioeconomic Impacts Community Input

Application of the MVA The 2005 BRAC MVA model as adapted for use to support: 2007 Grow The Army (GTA) 2009 stationing study which addressed: A possible Brigade Combat Team (BCT) returning from Europe Activation of a new Fires Brigade Stationing of Combat Aviation Brigades 2013 Active Component (AC) end-strength reductions (490K) and BCT reductions/reorganization (45 AC BCT to 32) 2015 end-strength reductions (450K) and BCT reductions (32 AC BCTs to 30) The MVA model and its attributes are detailed in the Army Force Structure and Installation Alignment Report to Congress, April 2015.

MVA Going Forward Army Facility Capacity Analysis vs Parametric Analysis The Army conducted a “Facility Capacity Analysis,” which showed an Army-wide excess capacity of 18% (490K AC) and 21% (450K AC) by FY19 The Army conducted a “Parametric Capacity Analysis,” based on the methodology used in 1998 and 2004 by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Results have not been released by OSD Both methods have advantages & disadvantages. Both methods show the Army has too much excess capacity Outside of BRAC authority, the Army has options to mitigate the fiscal impacts associated with retaining excess capacity EXORD 164-15; Reduce the Installation Facility Footprint Senior Commander effort to collapse units into minimum authorized footprint “Rightsize” through demo, facility conversions, termination of off post leases, etc. Lay-way facilities awaiting demo or contingency re-use The Army's parametric capacity analysis RESULTS have not been released externally, so not included in this slide. The Air Force did a parametric capacity analysis and released its results before OSD even tasked the services to perform the analysis. So the AF does not have the dilemma the Army does with releasing numbers. Army did our own RPLANS analysis (not parametric) and released the results before OSD tasked us to the parametric approach.   It is important to understand the two different approaches, so that when eventually OSD does release the Army's parametric results, we have better informed defense community leaders.  Feature Army Facility Approach – excess capacity Requirements Based. Analyzes the difference between projected quantities of facility types, to the projected requirements. Each instance where assets exceed requirements, produces an excess capacity square footage result. Analyzed all installations world-wide, excluding the Army National Guard. ARNG infrastructure serves more than a Title 10 purpose and as such, is inherently dispersed, making apples-to-apples comparisons very problematic. Advantages Analyzes the main facility types for all AC and USAR installations. Most BOS and SRM costs are concentrated at buildings on the cantonment areas. More realistic in how an actual BRAC would be conducted, since requirements drive many of the potential recommendations. Limitations Not particularly helpful in understanding excess capacity in unique facility types lacking published standards like the organic industrial base, training & testing land, medical, and RDT&E labs. Overall Method Parametric Approach Pure Capacity Based. Analyzes installations by type, using “base loading” ratios of infrastructure to force structure, and compares those to a 1989 baseline. Assumes that bases were optimally loaded in 1989. Produces a result in ‘excess bases’ by category Limited to installations inside the US. Also excluded the ARNG for same reason as Facility Approach. Installations that did not fit into any category, were not analyzed. (EX: GOCO facilities) Recognizes that requirements change, are inherently subjective, and can sometimes be mitigated. A purer capacity analysis can help reveal how much infrastructure is being retained because of policy choices (i.e., 1+1 barracks standard and 162 SF/person admin space standard). Ignoring all requirements is not realistic. Fails to properly recognize the multi-functional nature of Army installations (i.e., Ft Bragg hosts admin as well as operational units). 1989 baseline data is no longer readily available, limiting analysis options.

Partnership Spectrum Public Works Environmental Training Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement Education Soldier & Family Services Recruiting Recreation The Army has been partnering with communities for a long time. Congress has given us legislation to allow us to work partnerships with communities and municipalities (intergovernmental Support Agreements)--IGSAs   LTG Halverson is committed to expanding the role of partnerships, we need your help in telling us how we can do it better and more efficient. We want to leverage the full range of authorities and instruments to establish agreements We believe that doing so will help us create efficiencies, create savings, and help with cost avoidance. We understand that we need more engagement on our side and we have a strategy to do so. We are working that in conjunction with the Army Public affairs. Our POC for Partnerships is Ivan Bolden, he is here at this conference and looking forward to engaging with you on this important initiative for the Army. We leveraged the full range of authorities and instruments to establish agreements

Conclusion The Army has excess capacity across our enterprise; sustaining this capacity creates fiscal pressure on our Installations Infrastructure and Services portfolio. We continue to take risk in installation readiness to meet higher priority operational readiness requirements. Outside of BRAC authority, the Army has taken action to mitigate the impacts of reduced funding levels on our installation infrastructure. Together, we must continue to find innovative, cost effective means of delivering quality facilities and services to our Soldiers, Families, and Civilians that live and work on our installations.

BACKUP

HQDA Partnerships POCs Garrison Commanders should use IGSA authority to maximize efficiencies and economies of scale, including cost reduction. Only ASA (IE&E) can approve New Army EXORD currently being staffed Public facing website will provide up to date information on all partnerships For more information about the Army partnerships: visit our website: http://www.acsim.army.mil/partnerships/ email one of the following OACSIM contacts: Ivan Bolden, Chief of Partnerships: ivan.g.bolden.civ@mail.mil Donna Wilhoit, OACSIM: donna.l.wilhoit.civ@mail.mil Pressley Carr, OACSIM: pressley.r.carr.civ@mail.mil