Transcript A Corporate Presentation

The History of Base Realignments
and Closures (BRAC)
History of Base Closures
• 1977 Legislation, 10 U.S.C. 2687
– Stopped closures for a decade
• 1988 Legislation, Public Law 100-526
– Congress codified commission charted by SECDEF
– 86 closures and 13 realignments
– Successful process but had deficiencies
• 1990—SECDEF Announce Intent To Close Additional
Bases
– Congress enacted new legislation
• 1990 Legislation: Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990
– Created Commissions in 1991, 1993, and 1995
2
Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990
“To provide a fair process that will
result in the timely closure and
realignment of military installations
inside the United States.”
[Section 2901(b), Public Law 101-510]
3
Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990
• The Players
– Eight members, appointed by President,
confirm by senate
– GAO:
Provide direct audit assistance to
commission
Report on process and recommendations
by April 15
4
Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990
• The Method
– SECDEF publishes criteria and force structure plan
used in developing base closure and realignment
recommendations
– Commission reviews SECDEF recommendations to
ensure consistency with criteria and force
structure plan
– Certification of data
– Testimony before commission under oath
– Commission can change DoD recommendations if it
finds secretary of defense “Deviated Substantially”
from selection criteria or force structure plan
5
The Process
Secretary of Defense Publishes Selection Criteria and Force Structure Plan
(December)
President Nominates and Senate Confirms Commissioners (January-February)
Secretary of Defense Delivers Recommendations to the Commission (March 1)
Commission Conducts Hearings and Deliberations (March 1 – June 30)
Commission Delivers Recommendations to President (July 1)
President Considers and Forwards Recommendations to Congress
or Returns Recommendations to Commission (July 1 – July 15)
Congress Has 45 Days (Excluding Recesses) to Enact a Resolution of
Disapproval
6
Commission Responsibilities
• Ensure Fairness:
– “IN CONSIDERING INSTALLATIONS FOR CLOSURE OR
REALIGNMENT, THE SECRETARY SHALL CONSIDER
ALL MILITARY INSTALLATIONS INSIDE THE UNITED
STATES EQUALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER
THE INSTALLATION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY
CONSIDERED OR PROPOSED FOR CLOSURE OR
REALIGNMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT.”
[Section 2903(c)(3), Public Law 101-510]
• Ensure Openness:
– “EACH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION, OTHER THAN
MEETINGS IN WHICH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS TO
BE DISCUSSED, SHALL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.”
[Section 2902 (e)(2)(A), Public Law 101-510]
7
Final Selection Criteria
• Military Value
1. The current and future mission requirements and the impact on
operational readiness on the department of defense’s total force.
2. The availability and condition of land, facilities and associated
airspace at both the existing and potential receiving locations.
3. The availability to accommodate contingency mobilization and
future total force requirements at both the existing and
potential receiving locations.
4. The Cost and manpower implications.
• Return on Investment
5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including
the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of
the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the
costs.
• Impacts
6. The economic impact on communities.
7. The ability of both the existing and potential receiving
communities’ infrastructure to support forces, missions and
personnel.
8. The environmental impact
8
Cost of Base Realignment
Actions “Cobra”
• Calculates costs and savings of user defined
scenarios
• A comparative tool, not an optimizer
• No costs or savings from force-structure changes
• Construction supports realigning activities only
• Environmental clean-up costs not capture
9
1995 Commission Policies
• Every major base under consideration visited by at
least one commissioner
• Regional hearings gave communities a chance to
testify
• All documentation used in deliberations available
to anyone
• All commission activities open to the press and the
public
• Every affected community had a seat at the table
10
1995 Commission Activities
• 13 Investigate Hearing in Washington, DC
– 2 Hearings on “Life After Base Closure” – Federal
efforts to help local communities develop reuse
plans for closing bases
• 16 Regional hearings around the country
including Guam and Alaska
• Commission and Commission Staff visited 167
separate military activities
• 2 Full days of open, public deliberations on all
closure and realignment recommendations
11
Base Closure and Realignment
Recommendations
DoD
Submittal
1991
1993
1995
71
181
146
Accepts
59 (83 %)
152 (84 %)
123 (84 %)
Adds
1
18
9
12
Economic Impact
• California and Texas experience the largest
number of jobs lost
• Guam has the largest percentage of jobs lost –
approximately 7.9%
• Alaska loses approximately 0.4% of job base
• Texas, Alabama, Connecticut, North Dakota, and
California all lose approximately 0.3% of job base
13
Back-up
Force Structure
FY 1990
1991
Commission
FY 1995
1993
Commission
FY 1997
Army Divisions
(Active)
28 (18)
18 (12)
18 (12)
15+ (10)
Aircraft Carriers
(Reserve/Training)
16
(1)
13 (1)
13 (1)
12
(1)
Carrier Air Wings
(Active)
15 (13)
13 (11)
13 (11)
11
(10)
Battle Force Ships
545
451
425
346
Marine Corps
Divisions (Active)
4
Tactical Fighter
36 (24)
(3)
4
(3)
26 (15)
4
(3)
26 (15)
1995
Commission
GOAL
4
(3)
20
(13)
Wings (Active)
15
1995 Commission Results
• Recommended closure or realignment of 132 military
installations in the United States and Guam
– Approved 123 of the 146 closure or realignment
recommendations proposed by the secretary of
defense
– Recommended closure or realignment of 9 of 32
additional military installations identified by the
commission during its deliberations
• Commission recommendations will result in one-time
costs of $3.6 Billion; Annual savings of $1.6 Billion
once implemented; and 20-year savings of $19.3 Billion
• Recommendation for another base closure round in
2001
• Recommendations for executive branch, congress
and local communities to improve reuse process
16
1995 Closure and Realignment
Recommendations
($ Millions)
One-Time Costs
Annual Savings
20-Year Savings
(Net Present Value)
DoD Submission
(28 February 1995)
3,743
1,768
21,026
DoD Revised
Baseline*
3,521
1,569
18,994
Final Deliberation
Results
3,561
1,606
19,317
Change from DoD
+40
+37
+323
*Reflects revisions in costs and savings estimates submitted to the Commission by the Defense Department, as well as
the removal of the following installations from the list as requested by the Secretary of Defense: Kirtland AFB, NM:
Dugway Proving Ground, UT; Caven Point US Army Reserve Center, NJ; and Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support
Activity, WV.
17
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Annual Savings Achieved from Final Recommendations
($ Millions)
One-Time Costs
Annual Savings
Proposed by DoD
Annual Savings
Achieved by
Commission
Difference
Annual Savings
20-Year Savings
(Net Present Value)
1,619
3,083
1,026*
1,488
2,197
1,606
-141
-886
+35
*Original March 1 estimate was $1,768M. Current estimate of $1,569M reflects revisions in savings estimates submitted
to the Commission by DoD, as well as the removal of the following installations from the list of closures and realignments
as requested by the Secretary of Defense: Kirtland AFB, NM; Dugway Proving Ground UT; Caven Point US Army
Reserve Center, NJ; and Valley Grove Area Support Maintenance Activity, WV.
18
Economic Impact
• Emphasis, by law, is on first four criteria
• Economic impact was considered
• Commission Recommendations
– 1,689 fewer direct jobs lost than DoD
recommendations
– 6,029 more total jobs (Direct + Indirect) lost
than DoD recommendations
19
Depot/Shipyard Closure History
(Prior to BRAC 95)
Army
Anniston
Corpus
Christi
Tobyhanna
xRed River
xLetterkenny
oLexington –
Bluegrass
oPueblo
oSacramento
oTooele
Navy
Pearl Harbor
Cherry Point
Jacksonville
North Island
Portsmouth
Crane
Norfolk (NSY)
Puget Sound
Keyport
xLouisville
xLong Beach
xGuam
oPensacola
oPhiladelphia
oNorfolk
oCharleston
oMare Island
oAlameda
Air Force
Marines
Oklahoma City
Ogden
Warner Robins
Sacramento
San Antonio
Albany
Barstow
 Open
x Proposed
o Closed
20
FY 99 Depot Capacity Utilization –
Single Shift
Based on Dod Certification Data
Maximum
Potential
Capactity
(000 Hours)
Core
(000 Hours)
% Capacity
Utilization
9,005
4,895
54
Oklahoma City ALC
12,863
6,658
52
Warner Robins ALC
9,913
6,763
68
San Antonio ALC
15,220
4,463
29
Sacramento ALC
10,291
4,231
41
Ogden ALC
21
Summary of Cost Information
Air Force Depots
Cobra ($ M)
McClellan AFB
DoD DBCRC
Kelly AFB
DoD DBCRC
Robins AFB
DoD DBCRC
Tinker AFB
DoD
DBCRC
Hill AFB
DoD DBCRC
One-time Costs
575
410
582
421
925
762
1,332
1,141
Annual Savings
87
160
76
182
62
162
73
164
71
153
393
1,607
283
1,888
249
1,308
472
1,141
442
875
7
1
9
1
22
4
22
6
27
7
Net Present Value
Return on Investment
1,293 1,106
(Years)
USAF Ratings
33 Point Maximum
11
15
26
29
33
22
23
24