increasing utilization of dod facilities opportunities and obstacles alvarez & marsal, deloitte...
TRANSCRIPT
Increasing Utilization of DoD Facilities
Opportunities and ObstaclesAlvarez & Marsal, Deloitte Consulting, LLP, Kutak Rock
June 23, 2015
Installation Utilization & Infrastructure Support
Key Drivers • With the force drawdown underway, there will be a sudden and significant increase in
the amount of underutilized defense infrastructure (hollow bases)• DoD is already being forced to prioritize the expenditure of funds for infrastructure
and facilities maintenance and improvements that is causing assets to deteriorate rapidly• Many installations and commands face difficult decisions regarding critical mass funding• Funding cuts are resulting in discontinuation of infrastructure upkeep and traditional facilities
maintenance support
• Communities will face the dual economic impact of losing DoD jobs and also being unable to leverage the unused infrastructure to support economic redevelopment• Funding constraints not only impact on-base personnel and assets, but support contractors and
service providers within the surrounding communities
• What are the tools and strategies communities and installation managers can use to leverage unused installation infrastructure to support the local economy
Current State• Current DoD Authorities to move mission to sustaining Installations
• Hollowing out Installations• Mothballing • Convergence and Co-location of Missions and Assets
• Military facilities get shorted as part of DoD's tough 2015 budget choices - Under the funding levels Congress passed for 2014, the Army said it would be able to pay for about 80 percent of its facility sustainment needs. That dropped to about 62 percent in the 2015 budget.
• DoD maintains BRAC fight, despite opposition from Congress - DoD officials almost universally have encountered a hostile reception to BRAC during the annual round of posture hearings on Capitol Hill, but they say ignoring the problem won't make it go away. “It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to continue to operate a base that's half full."
Authorities (Tools) Available
• Section 331• Enhanced Use Leasing• Public-Public and Public-Private Partnerships• Asset Monetization • Leveraging Intellectual Capital• Collaborative training and education programs and facilities On-Base
• Intergovernmental Agency Agreements• Utility Privatization / UESC / 2922a (PPA)
Identifying Compatible Uses
• Other DoD Missions• Consolidating National Guard Facilities operated by States• Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (15)• Other Federal Agencies• State & Local Agencies• Health Organizations (including VA)• Universities/Educational Institutions• Private Sector Users
Federal Law Agency and Building Host DoD Property Cross-Agency Use Real Estate
Vehicle
CBP Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC)
March Air Reserve Base
Combines FAA and DoD radars, OAM airborne systems and other sensors into a single facility to track individual targets
AMOC hosts personnel from throughout the DHS, other federal agencies and international partners with complementary and interdependent missions
CBP became a tenant on the Air Force reserve installation after BRAC realignment effective April 1996, and reuse, planning and development of the base are overseen by the March Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Expansion and upgrade of systems and facilities at AMOC are submitted to Congress by CBP.
FBI Academy and Laboratory
Marine Corp Base Quantico
Law enforcement training and programs for FBI and external participants
Forensic analysis lab for local, state, and federal law enforcement without charge
FBI-Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ) Real Estate Land Use Agreement requires FBI to make submissions on all new construction and building additions to MCBQ. Academy and Laboratory were new construction on existing 547-acre FBI campus carved out of the Quantico Marine Corps base.
FBI, ATF and JIEDDO Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC)
Marine Corp Base Quantico (future relocation to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL)
Houses 13 government agency partners and 17 external partners
Hybrid leadership between FBI, ATF, DoD
New construction by FBI, with cost-sharing agreement for partners
Law Enforcement and Military Co-Location
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, LA
Provides training environment for active duty and reserve components of all branches of armed services
Creates seamless functionality between host and tenant commands in base support and community service programs
Military co-location construction on the naval air reserve base
Utilization Momentum
• Up to now – little motivation on part of all parties - sequestration and OMB’s “Freeze” and now “Reduce” the Federal facility footprint has changed the landscape• GSA may be dis-incentivized to organize such an effort on the Federal side
unless their funding model changes (lower lease commissions will impact their operation)• States and Local Governments must take a more active role in assisting the
parties evaluate the possibilities and participate in funding required infrastructure investments• Mapping the supply chain and associated economics and services that
support missions can yield a detailed understanding of collaborative benefits• Private Sector can assist in facility investment through EUL authority if no
Federal Master Lease is contemplated
Expediting the NEPA Process In Third-Party Development Projects
Constraints• Funding
• Staffing
• Coordination of Reviews• Internal Agency• External Agency
Resolutions• Leverage Private Sector to
Execute
• Establish Service Lead
• Installation Coordination Team
• Appoint Internal Review Team
• Manage Internal Review Timelines
• Manage Outside Agency Timelines
Making the Process Simpler
• Scope Evaluation• Keep EA scoping short and to the point
• Schedule • Reasonable, sustainable, unwavering
• EA versus EIS• EIS ONLY if there will be substantial chances to the usage of the asset• Mitigation measures in development constitute resolution – no EIS
• OTHERS?
Case Look – NEPA Process within EUL• December 2013 – EA Awarded
• January – March 2013 – Research Process/Background/Agency Coordination
• April 2014 – EA Initiated
• April 2014 –EA identification release for public comment
• August 2014 – Review and incorporation of public comment
• October 2014 – Public comment closed
• November 2014 – Solicitation for agency review comments
• December 2014 – Pre-Final EA completion (target final – 31 Dec 2014)
• January – February 2015 – State Agency comment review/response
• March – May 2015 – Extended State Agencies dialogue / comment
• June 2015 – Political intervention leveraged to facilitate finalization of state agency comments• Result – Mitigation plans remained unchanged from point in which state agency comments were originally solicited
• July 2015 – EA Finalized, FONSI signed
NEPA Process Adjustments
• Fix Schedule that is attainable, sustainable, and rigid• Better define “Major Government Action”• By size of project• FTE or headcount
• Increase number of approved categorical exclusions• Similar uses• Eliminate combined socioeconomic/environmental impact analysis where
appropriate
