GAO-20-303, Accessible Version, DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Army Should Assess Progress in Standardizing Designs for Facility Construction

DEFENSE

INFRASTRUCTURE

ArmyShouldAssess

Progressin

Standardizing

DesignsforFacility

Construction

Accessible Version

GAO-20-303

ReporttoCongressionalCommittees

United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-20-303, a report to

congressional requesters

April 2020

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE

Army Should Assess Progress in Standardizing

Designs for Facility Construction

What GAO Found

The nine Centers of Standardization (Centers) within the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers undertake a number of activities designed to support each of their

program objectives. Their charter includes three objectives: (1) developing and

refining Centers’ policies and processes; (2) assuring consistent application of

the Centers’ standards; and (3) monitoring execution to meet the overarching

objectives and priorities of the Army Facilities Standardization Program (AFSP)

and standardization process. We found that the Centers’ various activities¾such

as conducting value engineering and life-cycle cost studies to identify possible

cost savings and analyze long-term costs of new facilities¾are consistent with

key principles and concepts in Office of Management and Budget guidance for a

disciplined capital planning process. Additionally, the post-occupancy

evaluations led by the Centers are designed to evaluate whether the Army

functional requirements have been met, Army standard design has been

implemented, and there are any areas where the design could be improved.

These evaluations support all three of the Centers’ objectives by evaluating

whether a design needs improvement, a facility was constructed in accordance

with the approved project design, and customer needs were met.

Centers of Standardization Activities Performed during Army Military Construction Projects

The Army has limited performance measures to track the Centers’

progress in achieving program objectives. Semi-annual meetings of the

Army’s Centers of Standardization Management Board (Board) enable

the Army to track the Centers’ progress toward their goal of developing

and updating Center policies and processes (first objective of the

Centers). However, GAO found that the Army lacks performance

measures to assess the Centers’ progress in ensuring the consistent

application of Army standard designs (second objective of the Centers)

and in monitoring how well the Centers meet the objectives and priorities

of the AFSP and standardization process (third objective of the Centers).

Specifically, the Board does not maintain, consolidate, or analyze

information about how frequently the Centers participate in construction

projects, or how this activity affects the program and supports AFSP

objectives, such as reducing project costs, times, and change orders.

Taking steps to develop and implement appropriate performance

measures would enhance the Army’s efforts to ensure that the Centers

are meeting their program objectives.

View GAO-20-303. For more information,

contact Diana Maurer at [email protected] or

(202) 512-9627

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers began its Centers of

Standardization program to develop

design standards for facility types

that the Army constructs on a

regular basis. The Centers support

broader Army efforts under the

AFSP to standardize facility types

with objectives such as improving

design quality, reducing design and

construction costs and time, and

reducing change orders.

Senate Report 115-262

accompanying the John S. McCain

National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2019 included a

provision for GAO to evaluate the

Centers’ effectiveness. This report

assesses, among other things, the

extent to which (1) the Centers have

identified activities that support their

objectives, and (2) the Army tracks

the Centers’ progress toward their

objectives. GAO reviewed and

analyzed applicable regulations and

program and project documentation;

compared Center activities to

program objectives; and interviewed

cognizant agency officials to gain an

understanding of the Centers’

operations and potential financial

liabilities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the

Army establish performance

measures to assess the Centers’

progress to (1) ensure the consistent

use of standard designs and (2)

reduce construction costs and time

and reduce the occurrence of

change orders. The Army concurred

with our recommendations.

Page i Defense Infrastructure

Contents

Letter 1

Background 4

The Centers Have Engaged in Activities That Support Key

Objectives and Are Consistent with Key Principles and

Concepts in OMB Guidance 8

Army Has Limited Performance Measures to Track the Centers’

Progress toward Key Objectives 13

Use of Standard Design Does Not Introduce Increased Liability to

Facility Projects 16

Conclusion 17

Recommendations for Executive Action 18

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19

Appendix I: List of Projects GAO Reviewed 21

Appendix II: Facility Types Supported by Centers of Standardization 22

Appendix III: Department of Defense Standardization Program 25

Appendix IV: Crosswalk of Key Centers of Standardization Activities and Objectives 28

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Army 32

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Appendix VII: Accessible Data 36

Agency Comment Letter 36

Tables

Table 1: GAO’s Assessment of the Relationship between Centers

of Standardization (Centers) Activities and Applicable

Objectives 12

Table 2: List of Standard Design Construction Projects Reviewed 21

Table 3: Staffing Levels and Facility Types Supported by Centers

of Standardization 22

Page ii Defense Infrastructure

Table 4: GAO’s Assessment of the Relationship between Centers

of Standardization Activities and Objectives 29

Figures

Figure 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Centers of

Standardization Geographic Locations 5

Figure 2. Organizational Chart of Army Facilities Standardization

Committee, Centers of Standardization Management

Board, and the Centers of Standardization 6

Figure 3. Figurative Comparison between Army Standard Designs

and Two Other Sets of Facility Guidelines, the

Department of Defense’s Unified Facilities Criteria and

General Army Standards 7

Figure 4: Centers of Standardization Activities Performed during

Military Construction Army Projects 10

Page iii Defense Infrastructure

Abbreviations

Army Department of Army

ACSIM Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management

AFSP Army Facilities Standardization Program

Centers Centers of Standardization

Change Order Contract changes

Committee Army Facilities Standardization Committee

DOD Department of Defense

Facilities Criteria Unified Facilities Criteria

IMCOM Installation Management Command

MILCON Army Military Construction

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OUSD(R&E) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Research and Engineering

POE Post-Occupancy Evaluation

The Board Centers of Standardization Management Board

UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

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 1 Defense Infrastructure

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 22, 2020

Congressional Committees

In 2006 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began its Centers of

Standardization (Centers) program. Under this program, USACE

established nine Centers to develop design standards for types of

facilities that the Department of the Army (Army) constructs on a regular

basis, such as barracks, battalion headquarters, dining facilities, and

fitness centers. The objectives for Army facilities’ standardization and use

of the Centers’ standard designs include improving the design quality of

Army facilities, reducing the design and construction costs and time, and

reducing the contract changes during construction. We have previously

reported that federal construction projects typically involve some degree

of change as the projects progress. Contract changes (change orders)

are made through modifications to a contract and can occur for a variety

of reasons, including design errors and changes in user requirements.

For instance, a contractor could file a claim against the government if the

contractor felt there was a flaw in the Army’s standard design or that

using the standard design resulted in unanticipated costs during the

design or construction phase.

In March 2018 we reported that Department of Defense (DOD)

construction projects consistently faced cost overruns and schedule

delays.

Additionally, we reported that guidance for construction projects

did not fully incorporate the necessary steps for developing reliable cost

estimates. We recommended that DOD fully incorporate all 12 steps

needed for developing high-quality reliable cost estimates. As of August

2019, DOD officials told us that the department was planning to update its

cost-estimating guidance to include all 12 steps.

In addition, in July 2019 we reported that USACE does not regularly

monitor how long it takes to finalize construction contract changes, thus

limiting management’s ability to identify and respond to problems. We

recommended that the Secretary of the Army direct the Chief of

Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of

See GAO, Federal Construction: Army Corps of Engineers and GSA Need to Improve

Data on Contract Changes, GAO-19-500 (Washington, DC: July 2, 2019).

GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Action Needed to Increase the Reliability of Construction

Cost Estimates, GAO-18-101 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 2018).

Letter

Page 2 Defense Infrastructure

Engineers to develop a strategy to expand on existing data and systems

to routinely collect information on and monitor the time frames for

finalizing construction contract changes at the headquarters level. DOD

agreed with this recommendation, and officials told us that DOD has

developed a corrective action plan to address the recommendation. They

estimate that this effort will be completed in August 2020.

Senate Report 115-262, accompanying a bill for the John S. McCain

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, included a

provision for us to evaluate the effectiveness of the Centers, including

whether they are achieving their objectives.

This report assesses the

extent to which (1) the Centers have identified activities that support their

key objectives; (2) the Army tracks the Centers’ progress in meeting their

key objectives; and (3) increased liability may be introduced to the

Centers during construction when standard designs are used.

For objective one, we assessed the Centers’ roles and responsibilities—

as stipulated in Army and USACE regulations—to identify activities that

the Centers undertake on construction projects. We identified eight Army

projects that were authorized in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for our

analysis.

We selected projects from those years because military

construction projects typically take multiple years to complete. Therefore,

selecting projects from this time frame increased the likelihood that the

contractor had completed construction of the projects and that the

Centers had conducted post- occupancy evaluations, which are used to

assess users’ satisfaction with completed projects.

We then compared

these activities to the objectives expressed in the Centers’ 2006 charter to

GAO-19-500.

S. Rep. No. 115-262, at 402-03 (2018).

The Army documentation provided for these projects showed that five of them—which

involved three of the nine Centers—used standard designs. Of the remaining three

projects: one project was canceled, and the other two did not use standard designs. See

appendix I for a list of the projects we reviewed.

DOD guidance uses the term “post-occupancy review” and Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) guidance uses the term “post-occupancy evaluation” to refer to the process

of reviewing completed projects. For the purposes of our report, we will use post

occupancy evaluation (POE). See Army Engineer Regulation 1110-3-113, Department of

the Army Facilities Standardization Program, Appx. G (Apr. 21, 2016); OMB Circular No.

A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, Supplement, Capital

Programming Guide, Version 3.0 (December 2019).

Letter

Page 3 Defense Infrastructure

determine whether the activities supported the objectives.

We reviewed

supporting documentation for eight Army projects that the service

identified as being built using standard designs to determine whether

evidence existed to demonstrate that the Centers had engaged in these

activities. While our observations on these projects are not generalizable

to all Army projects, they illustrate the kinds of activities the Centers

engage in on Army projects that use standard designs. We further

evaluated whether the Centers’ activities are consistent with key

principles and concepts in Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

guidance to agencies for a disciplined capital programming process (for

example, federal buildings).

We also interviewed cognizant officials

concerning the Centers’ objectives and activities they engage in to

support those objectives.

For objective two, we reviewed information on processes related to the

Centers’ project documentation and performance metrics. We also

reviewed DOD annual performance reports to identify any goals and

performance measures that are related to the objectives of the Centers.

We assessed whether the project documentation, the Centers’

performance measures, and any performance measures in DOD’s annual

performance reports would assist the Centers in assessing progress

toward their three program objectives to (1) develop and refine Centers of

Standardization policies and processes; (2) assure consistent application

of standards of the Centers program; and (3) monitor the Centers’

execution to meet the overarching objectives and priorities of the Army

Facilities Standardization Program (AFSP) and standardization process.

Finally, we interviewed Centers headquarters and Army officials, including

members of the Centers of Standardization Management Board,

concerning any performance measures currently being utilized.

For objective three, we reviewed DOD and Army guidance and

regulations that address legal responsibilities related to military

construction to identify the extent to which the Centers’ role in developing

standard designs used in construction potentially exposes the Centers to

liability related to problems that arise during construction.

We reviewed

documents that relate to the Centers’ standard contracting practices and

Army Regulation 420-1, Army Facilities Management (Feb. 12, 2008) (incorporating

administrative revision, dated March 6, 2012); Army Engineer Regulation 1110-3-113.

OMB, Capital Programming Guide (December 2019).

E.g., Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-23 (2020). See also FAR,

48 C.F.R. § 52.236-25 (2020) (“Requirements for Registration of Designers”).

Letter

Page 4 Defense Infrastructure

interviewed USACE legal counsel concerning any previous or potential

liability related to standard design.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2019 to April 2020 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

The overall objective of the Army Facilities Standardization Program is to

achieve savings and benefits in the programing, design, and construction

of Army facilities of excellence.

To meet AFSP’s objectives in a timely,

efficient, and cost-effective manner, the Army established the nine

Centers in 2006 to support the AFSP, as shown in figure 1.

Army Engineer Regulation 1110-3-113. The objectives for Army facilities standardization

include, but are not limited to: (1) increased credibility with the Congress through more

consistent construction program development; (2) increased consistency in facility types

with equal treatment among Army Commands, installations, and users; (3) improved

master planning and site development activities, improved design quality, and the

promotion of design excellence; (4) simplified programming activities; (5) simplified design

and construction project management, reduced design costs and times, reduced

construction costs and time, and reduced change orders during construction; and (6)

increased customer satisfaction through improved responsiveness to user’s functional and

operational requirements.

USACE is comprised of eight divisions (geographical areas of responsibility), 43 district

offices, and nine other organizations serving specific functional needs. In five instances,

the division headquarters and district office are collocated.

Letter

Page 5 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Centers of Standardization Geographic Locations

The AFSP operates under the direction of the Army Facilities

Standardization Committee (Committee). As shown in figure 2 below, the

Committee is chaired by the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation

Management (ACSIM) and composed of members from USACE and the

U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM). Each of these

offices has representatives who are either full-fledged or advisory

members of the Centers of Standardization Management Board (the

Board). The Board members directly oversee the activities of the Centers

and are responsible for developing performance measures and reporting

them to the Committee.

Letter

Page 6 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 2. Organizational Chart of Army Facilities Standardization Committee,

Centers of Standardization Management Board, and the Centers of Standardization

The Centers have primary responsibility for developing and managing

Army standard design packages for designated facility types. The

Centers, among other things, ensure that these standard designs and

construction of projects comply with two other sets of facility guidelines:

DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (Facilities Criteria) and general Army

standards.

· As we previously reported, the Facilities Criteria are overarching,

DOD-wide technical manuals and standards used for planning,

design, construction, restoration, and maintenance of DOD facility

projects. These criteria must be used to the greatest extent possible

by all DOD components.

They are developed through the joint

efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, and

they are approved by the Engineer Senior Executive Panel of the

Unified Facilities Criteria Program.

GAO-18-101.

For more information on DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria, see

https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc as maintained by the National

Institute of Building Sciences and the Department of Defense.

Letter

Page 7 Defense Infrastructure

· According to Army Regulation 420-1, Army standards are the immutable,

unchanging, required facility elements and criteria that define the

fundamental purpose and function of a facility’s design and

construction.

These Army standards are authorized by the Committee.

Army standard designs define the facility key components, features, and

characteristics that must be included in the design and construction or

major renovation of all facilities of the same type regardless of location,

available funding, command preferences, or installation mission.

Essentially, Army standard designs may consist of architectural and

engineering drawings as well as written design specifications that a

construction team can easily adapt or modify for site-specific

requirements.

Figure 3 below compares Army standard designs with Facilities Criteria

and general Army standards.

Figure 3. Figurative Comparison between Army Standard Designs and Two Other

Sets of Facility Guidelines, the Department of Defense’s Unified Facilities Criteria

and General Army Standards

In addition to developing and managing Army standard design packages,

the Centers’ staff function principally as engineering and architectural

consultants within larger project teams as they monitor and oversee the

appropriate use of Army standard designs (as well as any incorporated

Army standards or Facilities Criteria). According to Centers officials, 12

full-time and 21 part-time staff are currently dedicated to the Centers.

Staff are located in USACE headquarters in Washington, D.C., as well as

in eight USACE districts and one Engineering and Support Center. Each

Army Regulation 420-1, Army Facilities Management, Appx. G (Feb. 12, 2008)

(incorporating administrative revision, dated March 6, 2019).

Letter

Page 8 Defense Infrastructure

Center specializes in and is responsible for specific facility types and their

designs. While the Centers support the Army’s overall efforts for

standardization, not every Army facility is built according to a standard

design.

Appropriate Centers staff are required to review every proposed

Army construction project at its outset and, if an installation has requested

a waiver from an existing Army standard or standard design, all voting

members of the Committee may authorize waivers in accordance with

certain procedures. According to Centers officials, Army standard designs

have been developed for about 70 regularly constructed facility types out

of the Army’s nearly 900 facility types. For example, the Army has

standard designs for fire stations, chapels, dining facilities, and weapons

storage. (See appendix II for a listing of the 70 facility types that currently

have standard designs or for which standard designs are under

development.)

According to Centers officials, the Centers’ 70 facility types account for

approximately 60 percent of Army Military Construction (MILCON)

projects and represent an estimated 55 percent to 70 percent of the

overall Army MILCON budget for any given year.

(See appendix III for

information on overall DOD standardization program, including the Navy

and Air Force standard design programs.) In fiscal year 2019, the Centers

reported a combined annual budget of about $6.2 million for their

operations and personnel.

TheCentersHaveEngagedinActivitiesThat

SupportKeyObjectivesandAreConsistent

withKeyPrinciplesandConceptsinOMB

Guidance

The Centers identified and engaged in a number of activities designed to

support the key objectives found in their charter and these activities are

consistent with key principles and concepts in OMB guidance for a

disciplined capital programming process. The Centers’ charter includes

Specifically, standard design applies to specific facility types that are funded through the

Military Construction, Army accounts. Standard designs do not apply to facilities

constructed by USACE for other military services or components.

In fiscal year 2019 this would amount to between $556 million and $708 million for

projects using Army standard designs.

Letter

Page 9 Defense Infrastructure

the following three objectives: (1) developing and refining Centers’

policies and processes; (2) assuring consistent application of standards of

the Centers program; and (3) monitoring the Centers’ execution to meet

the overarching objectives and priorities of the AFSP and standardization

process.

To meet the three objectives, the Centers engage in different

activities throughout the military construction process. Figure 4 below

shows the various points at which the Centers are involved in the life-

cycle of a military construction project and examples of the activities in

which the Centers engage. For example, Engineer Regulation 1110-3-

113 states that during the design phase of projects, the Centers maintain

a lead role and will be the technical lead for coordination, review, and

acceptance of design deliverables, including providing field technical

assistance, identifying and advising when a waiver is required and

coordinating with appropriate authorities in this matter, and reviewing and

editing requests for proposal documents—activities that according to our

analysis support the Centers’ second objective.

The AFSP objectives include (1) increased credibility with Congress through more

consistent construction program development; (2) increased consistency in facility types

with equal treatment among Army Commands, installations, and users; (3) improved

master planning and site development activities, improved design quality, and the

promotion of design excellence; (4) simplified programming activities; (5) simplified design

and construction project management, reduced design costs and times, reduced

construction costs and time, and reduced change orders during construction; and (6)

increased customer satisfaction through improved responsiveness to user’s functional and

operational requirements.

Army Engineer Regulation 1110-3-113, Department of the Army Facilities

Standardization Program (April 21, 2016).

Letter

Page 10 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 4: Centers of Standardization Activities Performed during Military

Construction Army Projects

Based on our review of supporting documentation from five projects that

used standard designs, we found that the Centers were undertaking the

activities mentioned above.

In addition, activities in which the Centers

engaged during the design, construction, and post-construction phases of

these projects were consistent with key principles and concepts in OMB

guidance.

Specifically, we found evidence that, for these five projects,

Centers’ staff participated as integrated members of the project delivery

teams in planning meetings, design reviews, assessments of the need for

standard design waivers, value engineering studies, and life-cycle cost

analyses during the projects’ design and construction phases. These

activities were consistent with key principles and concepts in OMB

guidance for a disciplined capital planning process, including that

agencies should use integrated project teams, as appropriate, to manage

We requested and received supporting documentation for seven Army military

construction projects initially authorized in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Five of these

projects utilized standard designs and the other two projects did not.

OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget,

Supplement, Capital Programming Guide, Version 3.0 (December 2019). The purpose of

the Capital Programming Guide is to provide professionals in the federal government

guidance for a disciplined capital programming process, as well as techniques for planning

and budgeting, acquisition, and management and disposition of capital assets. The

Capital Programming Guide also provides agencies flexibility in how they implement the

key principles and concepts discussed.

Letter

Page 11 Defense Infrastructure

the various capital programming phases or major acquisition programs

within the agency.

In addition, we found that other Centers’ activities—performing post-

occupancy evaluations (POE) and updating standard designs when

applicable—were also consistent with key principles and concepts in

OMB guidance for a disciplined capital planning process. For instance,

we found that a POE was completed for one project, a post-occupancy

questionnaire was completed for another project, a POE was planned

during fiscal year 2020 for a third project, and a fourth project was still

under construction.

According to OMB capital programming guidance,

POEs are tools to evaluate the overall effectiveness of an agency’s

capital acquisition process. The primary objectives of a POE include (1)

identifying how accurately a project meets its objectives, expected

benefits, and strategic goals of the agency and (2) ensuring the continual

improvement of an agency’s capital-programming process based on

lessons learned. The guidance identifies factors to be considered for

evaluation in conducting a POE, such as standards and compliance,

customer/user satisfaction, and cost savings. The guidance also notes

that a POE should generally be conducted 12 months after the project

has been occupied, to allow time for the tenant to evaluate the building’s

performance and relevant aspects of project delivery. However, the

guidance allows agencies some flexibility in the timing of a POE to meet

their unique needs if 12 months is not the optimal timing to conduct the

evaluation.

Our review of Centers guidance and project documents also found that

the Centers’ activities supported the Centers’ objectives as well as AFSP

objectives and priorities. In addition, Centers officials emphasized that the

Centers participate in all Army standard design construction projects to

ensure that the facility designs support the objectives of the AFSP,

specifically improving the programing, design, and construction processes

for Army facilities. As shown in table 1 and further outlined below, we

OMB, Capital Programming Guide (December 2019). Value-engineering is a federal and

commercially recognized systematic process of reviewing and analyzing project

requirements, among other things, for the purpose of achieving the essential functions at

the lowest facility life-cycle cost consistent with required levels of performance, reliability,

quality, or safety. Life-cycle cost is the total cost of a building or other product, computed

over its useful life. It includes all relevant costs involved in acquiring, owning, operating,

maintaining, and disposing of the facility over a specified period of time. See OMB Circular

No. A-131, Value Engineering (Dec. 26, 2013).

According to Centers officials, a POE is not required for the fifth project because a

waiver of the requirement to use the current standard design was approved.

Letter

Page 12 Defense Infrastructure

assessed whether the Centers’ activities undertaken on standard design

construction projects were applicable to the Centers’ objectives. Then, for

those that were applicable, we determined whether those activities

supported the Centers’ objectives. (See appendix IV for a detailed

analysis of how the Centers activities support the program’s objectives.)

Table 1: GAO’s Assessment of the Relationship between Centers of Standardization (Centers) Activities and Applicable

Objectives

Centers of Standardization

activity

Objective 1:

Developing and

refining Centers

policies and

processes?

(“Y/N”)

Objective 2:

Assuring consistent

application of Centers’

standards?

(“Y/N”)

Objective 3:

Monitoring Centers execution to meet the

overarching objectives and priorities of the

Army Facilities Standardization Program

(AFSP) and standardization process?

(“Y/N”)

Development of Army standards

and Army standard designs

n/a

Planning meetings

Design reviews

n/a

Value engineering

n/a

Life cycle cost analysis

n/a

Post occupancy evaluation

Authorizing standard design

waivers

Legend: n/a: not applicable

Source: GAO analysis of Centers of Standardization information. | GAO-20-303

Value-engineering is a systematic process of reviewing and analyzing project requirements, among

other things, for the purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest facility life-cycle cost

consistent with required levels of performance, reliability, quality, or safety.

Life-cycle cost is the total cost of a building or other product computed over its useful life. It includes

all relevant costs involved in acquiring, owning, operating, maintaining, and disposing of the facility

over a specified period of time.

· Centers use POEs to evaluate standard designs: We found, for

example, that the POEs led by the Centers are designed to evaluate

whether the project met fundamental Army functional and mission

requirements, whether the project implemented Army standard design,

and whether improvements to the design could be made. These reviews

support Centers objectives 1, 2, and 3— developing and refining Centers’

policies and processes, consistently applying Army standard designs,

and supporting AFSP objectives and priorities—by identifying areas of

the design needing improvement, evaluating whether a facility was

constructed in accordance with the approved project design, and eliciting

customer feedback concerning whether the finished facility meets

mission requirements.

Letter

Page 13 Defense Infrastructure

· Centers review standard design waivers: The Centers review an

installation’s waiver request and advise whether a waiver to Army

standards or standard designs is required for that specific project. This

process supports Centers objectives 1, 2, and 3—developing and refining

Centers’ policies and processes, consistently applying Army standard

designs, and supporting AFSP objectives and priorities. Specifically, part

of the waiver review and approval process is the Centers’ assessing

whether a waiver request represents a unique need of a specific end user

or a possible permanent change to the Army standard design or Unified

Facilities Criteria. In addition, if the Centers waive the use of or approve

deviations from standard design prior to the beginning of the construction

phase, it may reduce the number of change orders that occur during

construction.

ArmyHasLimitedPerformanceMeasuresto

TracktheCenters’ProgresstowardKey

Objectives

The Army, through its Centers of Standardization Management Board, is

responsible for oversight of the Centers and has performance measures

to track their progress in achieving one of their three key objectives.

However, the Army does not have performance measures for assessing

progress for their other two objectives.

Army’sCentersofStandardizationManagementBoardIs

ResponsibleforOversightoftheCenters

The Board provides oversight to the Centers in support of the AFSP. The

Board members are responsible for developing, implementing, and

reporting on program metrics. The Centers’ Charter of 2006 broadly

identifies the mission and objectives of the Board, while more recent

program guidance and regulations describe its functions in more detail.

The Charter states that the mission of the Board is to provide corporate

oversight and consistent Centers execution in support of the AFSP.

See Army Regulation 420-1, Army Facilities Management (Feb. 12, 2008) (incorporating

administrative revision, dated March 6, 2019); Army Engineer Regulation 1110-3-113,

Department of the Army Facilities Standardization Program (April 21, 2016).

Letter

Page 14 Defense Infrastructure

In overseeing the Centers, it is key that the Board has performance

measures that provide it with evaluative information to help make

decisions about the program—information that tells them whether, and

why, a program is working well or not. Performance measurement is the

ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments,

particularly progress toward pre-established goals. It is typically

conducted by program or agency management and is critical for providing

information concerning whether a program is working well or not.

Performance measures may address the type or level of program

activities conducted (processes), the direct products and services

delivered by a program (outputs), or the results of those products and

services (outcomes).

Army’sOversightProcessesfortheCentersHaveLimited

PerformanceMeasuresforTrackingProgresstoward

AchievingCenters’Objectives

The Army has a performance measure to support its first key objective.

Each fiscal year, the nine Centers develop budget execution plans that

outline how they will support the design standards for the specific facility

types for which they have responsibility. In these plans, the Centers

establish goals for updating specific existing standard designs and

developing new standard designs (that is, the output from the Centers’

efforts). The Board’s primary oversight process consists of monitoring

program execution of the nine Centers. According to Center officials, the

Board reviews these execution plans at the semi-annual board meetings

to determine whether the Centers are executing as planned, that is have

the Centers met their goals for updating and developing standard

designs. We found that this oversight process enables the Board to

assess the progress each of the Centers has made toward achieving its

goals for updating existing standard designs and developing new ones.

For example, in fiscal year 2017 the Fort Worth Center completed all four

of its planned standard design updates, and the Honolulu Center

completed three of its four planned updates.

We also found that the Board does not evaluate progress toward ensuring

that the Centers consistently apply standard designs across the Centers

GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships,

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). A program is defined as any activity,

project, function, or policy that has an identifiable purpose or set of objectives.

Letter

Page 15 Defense Infrastructure

of Standardization program (second objective of the Centers).

Specifically, as shown in table 1 above, the Centers engage in a number

of activities that support the consistent application of Centers standards

on a project-by-project basis.

However, the Board does not maintain,

consolidate, or analyze information about how frequently the Centers

engage in such activities, or how the Centers’ activities affect the

program. That is because, according to Army and Centers officials,

neither the Board nor the Centers have developed and implemented

performance measures to assess the progress the Centers are making in

ensuring that standard designs are consistently used. Absent such

measures, the Army lacks assurance that standard designs are being

applied, when appropriate, and that standard designs are being applied

consistently across the service.

In fact, to provide the project-specific documentation that we reviewed,

the Centers needed to request documents from the USACE district office

responsible for the projects. According to Centers officials, this was

necessary because the Centers currently do not have a document

management system in which project documentation is stored. Instead,

as the USACE organization responsible for specific projects, each district

maintains its own project records. The officials stated that USACE

recently moved to a cloud-based system for storing project documents

and is exploring whether this system could provide a more central

document storage system. We note that having access to such

information, along with creating appropriate performance measures, could

enable the Board to measure whether progress has been made in

ensuring that standard designs are applied consistently.

In addition, we found that the Board does not evaluate whether the

Centers are making progress in supporting the objectives and priorities of

the AFSP (third objective of the Centers). One of the objectives of the

AFSP is to reduce design costs and time, construction costs and time,

and the number of change orders issued during construction. Although

Army and Centers officials told us that the use of standard designs

reduces project costs, time, and change orders, they could not provide

supporting data. That is because, according to Army and Centers

officials, neither the Board nor the Centers have developed and

implemented performance measures to assess the effects of the use of

standard designs. Creating such measures could enable the Army to

See appendix IV for details of the specific activities the Centers engage in and the

objectives these actions support.

Letter

Page 16 Defense Infrastructure

assess the extent to which the Centers are reducing design costs and

time, construction costs and time, and the number of change orders

issued.

DOD’s Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Performance Plan and Fiscal Year 2018

Annual Performance Report established a goal of simplifying, delivering

faster, and reducing costs of product and service procurement. One of the

performance measures associated with this goal was to reduce cost

overruns and schedule delays by up to 50 percent for military construction

projects. Developing and implementing performance measures related to

reducing design costs and time, construction costs and time, and the

number of change orders issued would enable the Centers to

demonstrate the extent to which they are supporting DOD’s annual

performance goals.

UseofStandardDesignDoesNotIntroduce

IncreasedLiabilitytoFacilityProjects

We found that the use of the standard design does not introduce

increased liability for the Centers if issues arise during a construction

project. Centers officials stated that a contractor could file a claim against

the government if the contractor felt there was a flaw in the Army’s

standard design or that using the standard design resulted in

unanticipated costs during the design or construction phase. However,

Centers officials stated that there have been no instances in which any of

the Centers was a party to legal action related to the use of a standard

design.

According to Centers officials, the design for a facility project is typically

developed by one of the USACE district offices or an architect-engineer

contractor. Further, these officials stated that while the pertinent Army

standard design guides the development of Army project designs, the

final project design, certified by the USACE district office or an

architecture/engineering contractor, represents the plan for a specific

project. In addition, according to the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR), the architect-engineer contractor is responsible for the

professional quality, technical accuracy, and coordination of all designs,

drawings, specifications, and other services furnished by the contractor

Letter

Page 17 Defense Infrastructure

under its contract.

Furthermore, the FAR states that the contractor

shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or

deficiencies in its designs, drawings, specifications, and other services.

The FAR also stipulates that the contractor may be liable for government

costs resulting from errors or deficiencies in designs furnished under the

contract.

Consequently, according to USACE officials, because the

Centers are not responsible for the design of a specific project, they

would not have increased liability in the event that changes were required

during construction.

Conclusion

The Centers of Standardization develop and update Army standards and

Army standard designs within the Army Facilities Standardization

Program. In addition, the Centers are responsible for ensuring that the

design and construction of Army military construction projects comply with

approved Army standards and Unified Facilities Criteria. While the Army

tracks the Centers’ program execution related to the Centers’ efforts to

develop new and update existing standard designs (first objective of the

Centers), it does not have performance measures for assessing progress

toward the Centers’ other two objectives. Specifically, the Army does not

have performance measures in place to assess the progress the Centers

have made toward assuring consistent application of standards from the

Centers’ program (second objective of the Centers) or monitoring the

Centers’ execution to meet the overarching objectives and priorities of the

AFSP and standardization process (third objective of the Centers)

including, among other things, reducing design costs and time,

construction costs and time, and change orders during construction. This

hinders the Centers’ ability to determine how well they are supporting the

objectives of both the Army Facility Standardization Program and DOD’s

annual performance plans, as well as the Centers’ ability to demonstrate

the extent to which they are achieving their objectives.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-23 (2020). See also FAR, 48

C.F.R. § 52.236-25 (2020) (“Requirements for Registration of Designers”).

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-23 (2020).

FAR, 48 C.F.R. § 36.608 (2020). See also FAR, 48 C.F.R. § 36.609-2 (2020) (“Redesign

Responsibility for Design Errors or Deficiencies”); FAR, 48 C.F.R. § 36.609-4 (2020)

(“Requirements for the Registration of Designers”)

Letter

Page 18 Defense Infrastructure

RecommendationsforExecutiveAction

We are making two recommendations to the Secretary of the Army.

The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff

for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of

Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and

implement performance measures to assess the progress the Centers are

making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently.

(Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff

for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of

Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and

implement performance measures to assess the effects of the use of

standard designs, specifically the progress the Centers are making in

reducing design costs and time, construction costs and time, and change

orders. (Recommendation 2)

Letter

Page 19 Defense Infrastructure

AgencyCommentsandOurEvaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Army for

review and comment. In its written comments, the Army concurred with

both of our recommendations, and stated it would take actions to

implement them. The Army’s comments are printed in their entirety in

appendix V.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional

committees; the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army,

Navy, and Air Force.

In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please

contact Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or m[email protected]. Contact

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may

be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are

listed in appendix VI.

Diana Maurer

Director, Defense Capabilities

and Management

Letter

Page 20 Defense Infrastructure

List of Committees

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable John Boozman

Chairman

The Honorable Brian Schatz

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction,

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Adam Smith

Chairman

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Chairwoman

The Honorable John R. Carter

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction,

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Appendix I: List of Projects GAO Reviewed

Page 21 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixI:ListofProjects

GAOReviewed

Table 2: List of Standard Design Construction Projects Reviewed

Project

description

Project

number

Location

Responsible Center of

Standardization

Year

authorized

Year

completed

Unmanned aerial

vehicle hanger

081372

Fort Irwin,

California

Mobile

2015

Ongoing

Battlefield weather

support facility

078778

Fort Campbell,

Kentucky

Savannah

2014

2018

Tactical equipment

maintenance facility

076777

Joint Base Lewis-

McChord,

Washington

Savannah

2014

2019

Advanced infantry

training barracks

complex

053584

Joint Base Langley-

Eustis, Virginia

Fort Worth

2014

2019

Advanced infantry

training barracks

complex

051868

Fort Gordon,

Georgia

Fort Worth

2014

2019

Source: Centers of Standardization information | GAO-20-303

Appendix II: Facility Types Supported by

Centers of Standardization

Page 22 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixII:FacilityTypes

SupportedbyCentersof

Standardization

According to Centers officials, a total of 12 full-time and 21 part-time staff

are assigned to the Centers of Standardization. Each Center specializes

in and is responsible for specific facility types and their designs. Table 3

below lists the current staffing levels and the facility types supported by

each of the Centers.

Table 3: Staffing Levels and Facility Types Supported by Centers of Standardization

Centers of standardization

(location, staff, scope)

Seventy facility types

supported by standard design

Fort Worth, Texas

· 2 full-time, 2 part-time

· 10 facility types, including 1 under

development

1. Advanced individual training complex

2. Basic training and one station unit complex

3. Central issue facility

4. General purpose warehouse

5. Reception barracks

6. Starship renovation

7. Unaccompanied enlisted personnel housing

8. Unit supply support facility

9. Warriors in transition complex

10. Advanced survivable test battery (under development)

Honolulu, Hawaii

· 0 full-time, 2 part-time

· 2 facility types

11. Senior leaders quarters

12. Transient officer’s quarters

Appendix II: Facility Types Supported by

Centers of Standardization

Page 23 Defense Infrastructure

Centers of standardization

(location, staff, scope)

Seventy facility types

supported by standard design

Huntsville, Alabama

· 2 full-time, 2 part-time

· 17 facility types

13. Army community service center

14. Automated record fire range

15. Basic 10M-25M firing range

16. Battle command training center

17. Child development center

18. Combat pistol – MP firearms qualification course

19. Directorate of emergency services facility

20. Fire station

21. Live fire exercise shoothouse

22. Modified record fire range

23. Outdoor sports facilities

24. Physical fitness facility

25. School age center

26. Solder family service center

27. Training support center

28. Urban assault course

29. Youth center

Louisville, Kentucky

· 0 full-time, 3 part-time

· 2 facility types

30. Judicial center with courtroom

31. Operational readiness training complex

Mobile, Alabama

· 2 full-time, 3 part-time

· 4 facility types

32. Attack/reconnaissance/assault battalion hanger

33. Aviation support battalion hanger

34. General support aviation battalion hanger

35. Unmanned aircraft systems hanger

Norfolk, Virginia

· 1 full-time, 2 part-time

· 8 facility types

36. Army family housing

37. Automated-aided instruction

38. Criminal investigation command

39. General instruction building

40. Information systems facility

41. Military entrance processing station

42. Non-commissioned officer academy

43. Permanent party enlisted dining facility

Omaha, Nebraska

· 1 full-time, 2 part-time

· 5 facility types

44. Access control points

45. Chapels

46. Family life center

47. Initial entry training chapels

48. Religious education facilities

Appendix II: Facility Types Supported by

Centers of Standardization

Page 24 Defense Infrastructure

Centers of standardization

(location, staff, scope)

Seventy facility types

supported by standard design

Savannah, Georgia

· 2 full-time, 3 part-time

· 5 facility types

49. Battlefield weather support facility

50. Brigade/battalion headquarters

51. Company operations facility

52. Echelons above brigade command & control facility

53. Tactical equipment maintenance facility

Winchester, Virginia

· Center for nonpermanent facilities

· 2 full-time, 2 part-time

· 17 facility types

54. Envelopes

55. Administration

56. Billeting

57. Brief/assembly classroom

58. Dining

59. Fire station

60. Force protection

61. Headquarters

62. Joint operation center

63. Latrine

64. Laundry

65. Medical

66. Morale, welfare, and recreation-fitness

67. Officer quarters

68. Religious

69. Tactical operation center

70. Weapon storage

Source: Centers of Standardization information | GAO-20-303

The Starship facilities are similar in function to the Basic Combat Training complexes and house

1,200 soldiers. A Starship includes barrack accommodations, latrines, classrooms and a detached

dining facility.

Envelopes represent seven temporary facility types that can be adapted to meet the specific needs

of the user.

Appendix III: Department of Defense

Standardization Program

Page 25 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixIII:Departmentof

DefenseStandardization

Program

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) department-wide standardization

program has the goals of improving military operational readiness,

reducing total ownership costs, and reducing cycle time. Overseen by the

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

(OUSD(R&E)), the Department of Defense Standardization Program is

described in DOD Manual 4120.24, which outlines its governing council,

definitions, and procedures that apply to all components within the

department.

Under the Defense Standardization Program, DOD component heads

ensure that materiel standardization, including information technology and

facilities, is addressed throughout the acquisition process. The three

overarching goals of the Defense Standardization Program are to (1)

improve military operational readiness, (2) reduce total ownership costs of

the department, and (3) reduce cycle times. The manual also defines the

following terms:

· Standard. A document that establishes uniform engineering or technical

criteria, methods, processes, and practices.

· Standardization. The process of developing and agreeing on (by

consensus or decision) uniform engineering criteria for products,

processes, practices, and methods for achieving compatibility,

interoperability, interchangeability, or commonality of materiel.

· Defense standard. A document that establishes uniform engineering

and technical requirements for military-unique or substantially modified

commercial processes, procedures, practices, and methods. There are

five types of defense standards: interface standards, design criteria

standards, manufacturing process standards, standard practices, and

test method standards.

DOD Manual 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Procedures (Sept. 24,

2014) (incorporating change 2, effective Oct. 15, 2018).

Appendix III: Department of Defense

Standardization Program

Page 26 Defense Infrastructure

DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (Facilities Criteria) and Unified Facilities

Guide Specifications (UFGS) provide facility planning, design,

construction, operation and maintenance, sustainment, restoration, and

modernization criteria for facility owned by the DOD. The Facilities

Criteria contain technical guidance; introduce new and innovative

technology; or provide mandatory requirements to implement laws,

regulations, executive orders, and policies prescribed by higher authority

documents. The Facilities Criteria also define performance and quality

requirements for facilities to support their mission throughout their life

cycle. According to DOD guidance, the Facilities Criteria provide the most

current operationally effective, cost-efficient, and safe criteria at the time

of publication.

Both the Facilities Criteria and UFGS are developed

through the joint efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center,

and are approved by the Engineer Senior Executive Panel of the Unified

Facilities Criteria Program.

The Facilities Criteria and UFGS systems were designed not only to

establish uniformity among defense facilities, but to standardize and

streamline the process for developing, maintaining, and disseminating

construction criteria. The procedures for the development and

maintenance of the Unified Criteria and Unified Specifications are outlined

in Military Standard 3007G, which is updated by the Engineering Senior

Executive Panel.

Each military department (Army, Navy, and Air Force) has its own

facilities standardization program that implements the Unified Criteria and

Unified Specifications as well as service-specific facilities criteria,

standards, and guides. The Army’s program, known as the Army Facilities

Standardization Program (AFSP), is the oldest among the three

departments, having been initiated in 1993. Due largely to the unique

construction needs of the Army, the AFSP is the most complex and

DOD Military Standard 3007G, Department of Defense Standard Practice Unified

Facilities Criteria, Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (Nov. 1,

2019).

DOD Military Standard 3007G, Department of Defense Standard Practice Unified

Facilities Criteria, Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (Nov. 1,

2019). Members of the Engineering Senior Executive Panel include: the Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Facility Management; the Chief of Engineering and Construction

of the Army Corps of Engineers; the Chief Engineer of the Naval Facilities Engineering

Command; and the Deputy Director of Civil Engineers, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics,

Engineering and Force Protection, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.

Appendix III: Department of Defense

Standardization Program

Page 27 Defense Infrastructure

comprehensive of the facility standardization programs.

It utilizes two

levels of guidance for standardized facility types: a broad standard, called

“Army Standards,” and a specific standard, called “Standard Design.” The

Department of the Navy program began in 2014 and provides policy and

standards for the design development, and revision of Navy project

documents in Navy and Marine Corps Design and Facilities Criteria, while

the Air Force program was started in 2016 and provides criteria in an Air

Force Instruction for design and construction of Air Force facilities.

Specifically, while the Army has standard designs for 70 facility types, the Navy and Air

Force programs have standard designs for nine and 23 facility types, respectively. In

addition, while the Navy program has a standard format, it does not contain the same level

of specific design information that is contained in the Army standard designs. Similarly, the

Air Force program provides basic floor plans for the 23 facility types for which it has a

standard design. While these designs do include the various functional modules needed

for the facility, the level of detail included in the design does not provide the same level of

detail as the Army’s standard.

Navy Facilities Criteria 1-300-09N, Navy and Marine Corps Design Procedures (May 1,

2014) (incorporating change 4, effective June 14, 2018); Air Force Instruction 32-1023,

Designing and Constructing Military Construction Projects (Nov. 19, 2015).

Appendix IV: Crosswalk of Key Centers of

Standardization Activities and Objectives

Page 28 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixIV:Crosswalkof

KeyCentersof

StandardizationActivitiesand

Objectives

The Centers of Standardization (Centers) undertake a number of

activities designed to support the key objectives found in their charter,

which includes supporting the objectives of the Army Facilities

Standardization Program (AFSP). Table 4 identifies each of these

activities along with the specific objectives that we determined the

activities support.

· Centers objectives:

· developing and refining Centers of Standardization policies and

processes,

· assuring consistent application of standards of the Centers’ program, and

· monitoring the Centers’ execution to meet the overarching objectives of

the AFSP and standardization process.

· AFSP Objectives:

· increased credibility with the Congress through more consistent

construction program development,

· increased consistency in facility types with equal treatment among Army

Commands, installations, and users,

· improved master planning and site development activities, improved

design quality, and the promotion of design excellence,

· simplified programming activities,

· simplified design and construction project management, reduced design

costs and times, reduced construction costs and time, and reduced

change orders during construction, and

· increased customer satisfaction through improved responsiveness to

users’ functional and operational requirements.

Appendix IV: Crosswalk of Key Centers of

Standardization Activities and Objectives

Page 29 Defense Infrastructure

Table 4: GAO’s Assessment of the Relationship between Centers of Standardization Activities and Objectives

Activity

Center of Standardization (Centers) objectives being supported

Developing Army standards and Army

standard designs – Under the Army

Facilities Standardization Program (AFSP),

the Centers are responsible for developing

and updating both Army standards and

Army standard designs. Both of these must

also comply with Unified Facilities Criteria

established by DOD.

Centers objective 1: Developing and Refining Policies and Processes – The Army

standards and Army standard designs are the basis for designing facilities;

consequently, Centers’ activity that develops and refines either Army standards or Army

standard designs supports this objective.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports three of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective of increased

consistency in facility types by developing new Army standards and Army standard

designs and updating these designs as needed based on user input and changes in

operating requirements. (2) Supports the objective of improved master planning and site

development activities, improved design quality, and the promotion of design excellence

by providing approved standards for use on certain facility types. (3) Supports the

reduction of design costs and times by providing the basic designs for facility types,

which is likely to reduce design costs and times.

Centers participation in planning

meetings – Personnel share information

and document site development work that

the USACE Geographic District is required

to perform in preparation for integrating the

standard design into the site, coordinating

utilities, and combining site and facility

Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design strategy, among other things.

Centers objective 1: Developing and Refining Policies and Processes –

Participating in the planning process enables the Centers to identify updates needed in

the standard design to satisfy emerging requirements.

Centers objective 2: Consistently Applying Standard Design – Participating in the

planning process for the construction project enables the Centers to ensure that

standard design is considered and incorporated appropriately.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports three of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective of increased

consistency in facility types in that the Centers, which are responsible for creating,

updating, and ensuring the use of standard designs, participate in the planning process

for current construction projects that incorporate standard designs. (2) Supports the

objective to improve master planning and site development activities, improved design

quality, and the promotion of design excellence in that the Centers participate in the site

development activities and work with the end users to incorporate unique requirements

into the design. (3) Supports the objective to increase customer satisfaction by

incorporating unique user requirements into the design process as appropriate.

Conducting design reviews – At various

times during the design process, the

Centers review the design to determine if it

complies with the standard design

requirements. The Centers reviewer

provides detailed written comments about

the design, to which the designer of

responsibility responds and resolves prior

to design approval.

Centers objective 2: Consistently Applying Standard Design – The Centers’

participation in the review of proposed design ensures that standard design is

considered for the construction project and results in an approved design that

incorporates the standard design.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports three of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective of increased

consistency in facility types in that the Centers, which are responsible for creating,

updating, and ensuring the use of standard designs, review the proposed designs for

construction projects and incorporate standard designs into the design process for

current projects. (2) Supports the objective to improve master planning and site

development activities, improved design quality, and the promotion of design excellence

in that the Centers participate in the site development activities and work with the end

users to incorporate unique requirements into the design. (3) Supports the objective to

increase customer satisfaction by incorporating unique user requirements into the design

process as appropriate.

Appendix IV: Crosswalk of Key Centers of

Standardization Activities and Objectives

Page 30 Defense Infrastructure

Activity

Center of Standardization (Centers) objectives being supported

Conducting value engineering studies –

Centers personnel study the functions a

project is supposed to achieve and identify

alternative ways to achieve the equivalent

function while increasing the value and the

benefit ratio of the project.

Centers objective 2: Consistently Applying Standard Design – Supports this

objective in that the studies ensure that standard design is utilized unless a more cost-

effective or a more functional alternative would better serve the end user of the project.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports four of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective of increased

consistency in facility types in that the studies identify the instances in which standard

design can be altered. (2) Supports the objective to improve master planning and site

development activities, improved design quality, and the promotion of design excellence

in that the studies identify project specific exceptions to standard design. (3) Supports

the reduction of construction costs through incorporation of acceptable design changes

that provide greater value and/or benefits and the reduced change orders by

incorporating changes upfront rather than during the construction process. (4) Supports

the objective to increase customer satisfaction in that the studies incorporate alternative

design options that will satisfy the functional requirements of the project that provide

greater value and/or benefits to the user.

Conducting life-cycle cost analyses –

Life-cycle cost analyses explore the

feasibility of alternative approaches for

meeting the user needs for a specific

project.

Centers objective 1: Developing and Refining Policies and Processes – Supports

this objective in that the Centers participate in the planning process, which enables them

to identify updates needed in the standard design to satisfy emerging requirements.

Centers objective 2: Consistently Applying Standard Design – Supports this

objective in that the Centers consider standard design in the planning process for the

construction project, which ensures that standard design is considered and incorporated

appropriately.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports three of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective of increased

consistency in facility types in that the Centers, which are responsible for creating,

updating, and ensuring the use of standard designs, participate in the planning process

for construction projects by incorporating standard designs into the planning process for

current projects. (2) Supports the objective to improve master planning and site

development activities, improved design quality, and the promotion of design excellence

in that the Centers participate in site development activities and work with the end users

to incorporate unique requirements into the design. (3) Supports the objective to

increase customer satisfaction in that the analyses incorporate unique user requirements

into the design process as appropriate.

Centers participation in post occupancy

reviews – Post-occupancy reviews

evaluate whether a facility meets the Army

standard design. Center personnel identify

and evaluate discrepancies to determine

their cause and whether revisions to the

standards are needed.

Centers objective 1: Developing and Refining Policies and Processes – Supports

this objective in that the Centers identify instances in which standard design needs to be

updated or revised.

Centers objective 2: Consistently Applying Standard Design – Supports this

objective in that the Centers identify and advise when waivers are required to ensure

that there is sufficient justification when facilities do not use standard designs.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports two of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective to improve

master planning and site development activities, improve design quality, and promote

design excellence in that the Centers review recommended changes for inclusion in

updates to the standards. (2) Supports the objective to increase customer satisfaction

through improved responsiveness to users’ functional and operational requirements in

that the Centers consider recommended changes based on user needs for inclusion in

the updates to the standards.

Appendix IV: Crosswalk of Key Centers of

Standardization Activities and Objectives

Page 31 Defense Infrastructure

Activity

Center of Standardization (Centers) objectives being supported

Centers approval of standard design

waivers – Reviews and grants waivers for

deviations from Army standards or Army

standard designs. The Centers review

specific projects and advise installations on

requests for waivers, which the Army

Facilities Standardization Committee

approves or disaaproves. The Centers also

review and approve/disapprove requests

for waivers from Army standard designs.

Centers objective 1: Developing and Refining Policies and Processes – Supports

this objective in that the Centers consider requests for waivers and consider whether

approved waivers should be incorporated into the standards.

Centers objective 2: Consistently Applying Standard Design – Supports this

objective in that the Centers, by identifying and advising when waivers are required,

ensure that there is sufficient justification when facilities do not use standard designs.

Centers objective 3: Supporting AFSP Objectives and Priorities – Supports four of

the Army facilities standardization objectives. (1) Supports the objective to increase

consistency in facility types in that the Centers grant waivers only when properly justified

and consider whether waivers should be incorporated into the standards. (2) Supports

the objective to improve master planning and site development activities, improve design

quality, and promote design excellence in that the Centers consider whether approved

changes to one project are appropriate for future projects. (3) Supports the objective to

reduce change orders during construction in that approving waivers enables the Centers

to include changes in design prior to the beginning of the construction phase. (4)

Supports the objective to increase customer satisfaction in that the Centers’ review of

waivers provides a formal process for users’ to request changes to the standard designs.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense information | GAO-20-303

Appendix V: Comments from the Department

of the Army

Page 32 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixV:Commentsfromthe

DepartmentoftheArmy

Appendix V: Comments from the Department

of the Army

Page 33 Defense Infrastructure

Appendix V: Comments from the Department

of the Army

Page 34 Defense Infrastructure

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 35 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixVI:GAOContact

andStaffAcknowledgments

GAOContact

Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or [email protected]

StaffAcknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Brian Lepore, Director (Retired);

Maria Storts, Assistant Director; John Wren, Analyst-in-Charge; Marybeth

Acac, Virginia Chanley, Christopher Gezon, David Jones, Lashai

McCullough, Carol Petersen, Steve Pruitt, Carter Stevens, and Cheryl

Weissman made significant contributions to this report

Appendix VII: Accessible Data

Page 36 Defense Infrastructure

AppendixVII:Accessible

Data

AgencyCommentLetter

AccessibleTextforAppendixVCommentsfromthe

DepartmentoftheArmy

Page 1

SAIE-ZA

MAR 31 2020

Ms. Diana Maurer

Director, Defense Capabilities Management

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW

Washington DC 20548

Dear Ms. Maurer,

Enclosed is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft

Report GAO-20-303, "GAO DRAFT Report GAO-20-303, DEFENSE

INFRASTRUCTURE: Army Should Assess Progress in Standardizing

Designs for Facility Construction, Dated April 2020 (GAO Code 103240)."

Also enclosed is the Department of the Army response to the subject

report. My point of contact is Ms. Jacquelyn M. Anthony who can be

reached at (703) 695-5705 or jacquelyn.m.anthony.civ@mail.

Sincerely,

Alex A. Beehler

Appendix VII: Accessible Data

Page 37 Defense Infrastructure

Enclosure

Page 2

SAIE-ZA

MAR 19 2020

MEMORANDUM FOR Secretary of the Army

SUBJECT: Request for approval to release Army Comments to GAO

DRAFT Report GAO-20-303, DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Army

Should Assess Progress in Standardizing Designs for Facility

Construction, Dated April 2020 (GAO Code 103240)

I recommended the following responses to the draft GAO report:

a. GAO Recommendation 1: "The Secretary of Army should ensure

that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in

conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance

measures to assess the progress the Centers are making in

ensuring that standard designs are used consistently."

Army Recommended Response: Concur with comment. This

recommendation will be implemented by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G9.

b. GAO Recommendation 2: The Secretary of the Army should

ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation

Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement

performance measures to assess the effects of the use of

standard designs, specifically the progress the Centers are

making in reducing design costs and time, construction costs and

time and change orders."

Army Recommended Response: Concur with comment. This

recommendation will be implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

Sincerely,

Alex A. Beehler

Appendix VII: Accessible Data

Page 38 Defense Infrastructure

Enclosure

(103240)

GAO’sMission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

ObtainingCopiesofGAOReportsandTestimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly

released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to

GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

OrderbyPhone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

ConnectwithGAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

ToReportFraud,Waste,andAbuseinFederal

Programs

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

CongressionalRelations

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4400,

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125,

Washington, DC 20548

PublicAffairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, DC 20548

StrategicPlanningandExternalLiaison

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,

Washington, DC 20548