1

BRAC 2005

September 14, 2005

2

BRAC 2005 Process and Strategy

3

Key Imperatives

Further Transformation• Rationalize infrastructure to force structure

• Adjust footprint to maximize capability and efficiency

Maximize Joint Utilization• Reduce overhead

• Improve efficiency

• Facilitate joint training and operations

Convert Waste to Warfighting• Unnecessary capacity diverts DoD resources

4

Process Timeline

SecDef initiates BRAC 05 Process (establish organization, process, and initial policy (Nov 02))

SecDef Approves and Forwards Recommendations for Realignments and Closures to Commission (May 16, 2005)

Commission Process (May 05 - Sep 05)

Presidential Review and Approval (Sep 05)

Congressional Action (Sep 05 + 45 Legislative Days)

NOV 02 ~DEC 05

SecDef BRAC Report and Certifications (Delivered March 23, 2004)

Selection Criteria Published (Feb 04)

Commissioner Nominations (15 Mar 05)

Threat Assessment/Revised Force Structure Plan (15 Mar 05)

5

SecDef’s Kickoff Memo:Analytical Construct—Two Categories

Service-Unique Functions • Analyzed by each Military Department

Common Business Oriented Support Functions• Analyzed by Joint Cross Service Groups that

include representatives from each Service

6

BRAC 2005 Leadership

Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG)Chair: USD(AT&L)

SEC ARMY SEC NAVY SEC AIR FORCE

Infrastructure Executive Council (IEC)Chair: DEPSECDEF

SECDEF Membership: (10) • Military Department

Secretaries and their Chiefs of Services

• Chairman, JCS• USD (AT&L)

DEPT OF ARMYANALYTICAL TEAMS

DEPT OF NAVYANALYTICAL TEAMS

DEPT OF AIR FORCEANALYTICAL TEAMS

Industrial JCSGChair: PDUSD AT&L

Supply & Storage JCSGChair: Director DLA

Education & Training JCSG*Chair: PDUSD (P&R)

Headquarters & Support JCSGChair: Deputy G-8, Army

Medical JCSGChair: AF Surgeon General

Technical JCSGChair: D,DR&E

Membership: (10)• Vice Chairman, JCS• Military Department Assistant

Secretaries (I&E)• Service Vice Chiefs• DUSD (I&E)

*Joint Cross-Service GroupIntelligence JCSG

Chair: DUSD (CI&S)

7

BRAC 05 Process Overview

Military Value & Other Data

Calls & Issuance

Capacity Data Call Dev

& Issuance

Capacity Analysis

Scenario Development

Scenario Analysis/COBRA

Recommen-dations to

Commission

An

alyt

ical

A

pp

roac

h

MilitaryValue

Analysis

Key Aspects of Process

CAPACITY MILITARY VALUE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ANALYSIS

FinalizeRecommen-

dations

Inventory • What• Where• How Big• Usage• Surge

Selection Criteria 1 - 4• What’s important • How to measure• How to weight• Rank order

20-Year Force Structure Plan Capacity AnalysisMilitary Value AnalysisTransformational IdeasGuiding principles)

Selection Criterion 5 – Potential Costs & Savings (COBRA)Criteria 6, 7, 8 – Economic, Community, & Environmental Impacts

8

Army Vision for BRAC 2005

DOD Selection Criteria

Title X Responsibilities

DOD Strategic Planning Guidance

The Army Plan

Army Campaign Plan

Army’s Focus Areas

Senior Leaders MACOM Commanders

Strategic Readiness System

Transformation

“A campaign quality Joint and Expeditionary Army

positioned to provide relevant and ready combat power to

Combatant Commanders from a portfolio of

installations that projects power, trains, sustains

and enhances the readiness and well-being

of the Joint Team.”

9

Department of Navy Overarching Strategy

Continue to rationalize infrastructure capabilities to eliminate unnecessary excess

Balance effectiveness of fleet concentration with AT/FP desire for dispersion/redundancy

Leverage opportunities for total force integration and joint basing

Accommodate changing operational concepts Facilitate evolution of force structure and

infrastructure organizational alignment

10

1. Maintain squadrons within operationally efficient proximity to DoD-controlled airspace, ranges, MOAs, and low-level routes

2. Optimize the size -- # of aircraft / crew ratios -- of our squadrons

3. Better meet needs of the Air Force by maintaining/placing ARC units in locations that best meet the demographic and mission requirements unique to the ARC

4. Mobility basing that optimizes proximity to mission

5. Ensure long-range strike bases provide flexible strategic response and strategic force protection

6. Retain enough capacity to bed down worldwide AF forces

7. Ensure joint basing realignment actions (when compared to the status quo) increase the military value of a function, or decrease the cost for the same military value of that function

Air Force Strategies - Principle-Driven

Identify “Best of Breed” BasesJudge Remaining Bases for Overall Military Utility

11

JCSG Overarching Strategies

Industrial - Joint solutions, regionalization, and follow the fleet. Education & Training – Joint centers of excellence, private sector

reliance, joint combat and undergraduate flight training, preserve Service acculturation.

Supply & Storage - Transition from linear to networked processes. Force focused with regionalized distribution.

Headquarters & Support - Joint solutions, regionalization, and consolidation of NCR, pay, major HQs, prisons, and leased space.

Medical – Proficient and jointly trained medical forces ready to deploy. Size treatment facilities to beneficiary population demand. Consolidate, co-locate, and partner with civilian/VA.

Technical - Align and consolidate Research, Development, Acquisition, Test, & Evaluation Centers for functional and technical efficiency and synergy.

12

Combatant Command Involvement Process changes from previous rounds

• Shift in role of Joint Cross Service Groups

• Solicitation of COCOM input

CJCS has statutory responsibility to consult with and seek advice from Combatant Commanders

Chairman and Vice Chairman representation on IEC and ISG, respectively, achieves this consultation role

• Joint Staff representation on each JCSG

• Joint Staff channeled CoCom concerns through scenario review process

Chairman’s concurrence on candidate recommendations included CoCom coordination

• Established Reading Room

13

BRAC 2005 Results

14

SECDEF Recommendations 222 Recommendations (CR)

• 842 Installations affected 33 Major closures (>$100M PRV) 29 Major realignments (400 or more net reduction in mil/civ personnel) 780 Other actions

• 274 Minor realignments (26% leased)• 506 Minor closures (12% leased)

$5.5B Annual Recurring Savings, $48.8B NPV• With overseas: $6.7B Annual Recurring Savings, $64.2B NPV

Adjusts the U.S. base structure to receive 47,000 Army personnel returning from overseas

Realize two dollars in savings for every dollar spent comparing one-time costs to net present value savings.

15

Comparing BRAC Rounds

(TY $B) Major Base

Closures

Major Base Realignments

Minor Closures and Realignments

Costs1 ($B)

AnnualRecurring Savings 2

($B)

BRAC 88 16 11 23 2.7 0.9

BRAC 91 26 19 32 5.2 2.0

BRAC 93 28 13 123 7.6 2.6

BRAC 95 27 22 83 6.5 1.7

Total 97 65 261 22.0 7.3 3

BRAC 05 25 26 783 22.8 4.4

Note 1: As of the FY 2006 President’s Budget (February 2005) through FY 2001.Note 2: Annual recurring savings (ARS) begin in the year following each round’s 6-year implementation period: FY96 for BRAC 88; FY98 for BRAC 91; FY00 for BRAC 93; and FY02 for BRAC 95. These numbers reflect the ARS for each round starting in 2002 and are expressed in FY 05 dollars.Note 3: Does not add due to rounding.

16

Strategies to Outcomes

Force Protection realities• Leased space (H&SA)

Re-deploying force structure/Combining Arms• Army UA (USA)

Relieves stress on the Force• +18K additional troops/more MPs

• Less PCS

• Better Guard/Reserve training opportunities

o Recruiting/Retention

Centers of Excellence/Expertise• Walter Reed National Medical Center

• Joint Transportation Management Trng

Optimization of Military Value• Surge

Annual recurring savings• $5.5B Savings

Jointness • Installation Management (H&SA)

Transformation• Joint Strike Fighter (E&T)

Integration of overseas actions• Fort Bliss (USA)

Business Transformation• Supply Chain management (S&S)

• Depot Level Reparables (S&S) Technology and Lab consolidation

• RDAT&E Fixed Wing (TECH)

17

Results of Commission Review Accepted about 65% of DoD’s 222 recommendations (discounting minor

changes the acceptance rate is 79%) Of the Department’s proposed 33 major closures and 29 major realignments,

the Commission approved 76 percent and 90 percent respectively Financial changes:

Report and recommendations forwarded to the President on September 8, 2005

($B) DoD Submission Commission Result Changed

One-Time Costs $24.4 $22.8 ($1.6)

Annual Recurring Savings $5.5 $4.4 ($1.1)

20 Year Net Present Value $48.8 $36.5 ($12.3)

18

Way Forward

The Commission submitted recommendations to the President on September 8th. President has until September 23rd to approve or disapprove.• Approval – President sends to Congress.

• Disapproval – President sends back to the Commission for reconsideration. Commission has until October 20th to resubmit recommendations. President has until November 7th to approve or disapprove.

Unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval before the earlier of 45 days* or adjournment sine die, the Department must close and realign the installations so recommended.

The Department must begin implementing the recommendations within 2 years and complete within 6 years.

If Congress adjourns for more than 3 days, the 45 day countdown is suspended.