Transcript Assessing Army Infrastructure - Installation Innovation Forum 2016

Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management
MG Ted Harrison
Director of Operations
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management
29 February 2016
America’s Force of Decisive Action
Current Facilities Environment
 Reduced SRM and MILCON investments since 2009
• Drop in the percent of “Green” rated facilities from 76% to 70%
• Percent of “red” and “black” rated facilities is on the rise
 Degraded Army facilities hurt readiness and quality of life
 The Army is looking for cost effective opportunities to:
• Divest of its worst facilities; save operations and maintenance costs
in the near-term
• Preserve its best facilities; meet
contingency capabilities
• Balance the Installation footprint;
align readiness requirements to
physical assets
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Army Military Value Analysis Model
 Developed by the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) and managed by HQDA G-3/5/7
 Contributes to stationing decisions; evaluates installations based attributes within four
operational categories:
•
•
•
•
Training
Power Projection
Well Being
Expansibility/Reversibility
 Each attribute score contributes to a total score for the installation
 The MVA informs the Army Senior Leadership’s decision-making process. Other factors
considered outside the MVA include
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strategic Considerations
Cost and Efficiencies
Readiness
Mission Command
Feasibility
Environmental & Socioeconomic Impacts
Community Input
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Application of the MVA
 The 2005 BRAC MVA model as adapted for use to support:
• 2007 Grow The Army (GTA)
• 2009 stationing study which addressed:
• A possible Brigade Combat Team (BCT) returning from Europe
• Activation of a new Fires Brigade
• Stationing of Combat Aviation Brigades
• 2013 Active Component (AC) end-strength reductions (490K) and BCT
reductions/reorganization (45 AC BCT to 32)
• 2015 end-strength reductions (450K) and BCT reductions (32 AC BCTs to 30)
The MVA model and its attributes are detailed in the Army Force Structure and
Installation Alignment Report to Congress, April 2015.
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
MVA Going Forward
Army Facility Capacity Analysis vs Parametric Analysis
 The Army conducted a “Facility Capacity Analysis,” which showed an Army-wide
excess capacity of 18% (490K AC) and 21% (450K AC) by FY19
 The Army conducted a “Parametric Capacity Analysis,” based on the
methodology used in 1998 and 2004 by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Results have not been released by OSD
 Both methods have advantages & disadvantages. Both methods show the
Army has too much excess capacity
 Outside of BRAC authority, the Army has options to mitigate the fiscal impacts
associated with retaining excess capacity
 EXORD 164-15; Reduce the Installation Facility Footprint
 Senior Commander effort to collapse units into minimum authorized footprint
 “Rightsize” through demo, facility conversions, termination of off post leases, etc.
 Lay-way facilities awaiting demo or contingency re-use
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Partnership Spectrum
 Public Works
$$
Reimbursement
 Environmental
 Training
 Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement
 Education
 Soldier & Family Services
 Recruiting
No
Cost
 Recreation
Risk & Complexity
Low
Moderate
High
We leveraged the full range of authorities and instruments to establish agreements
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
Conclusion
 The Army
has excess capacity across our enterprise; sustaining this
capacity creates fiscal pressure on our Installations Infrastructure and
Services portfolio.
 We continue to take risk in installation readiness to meet higher priority
operational readiness requirements.
 Outside of BRAC authority, the Army has taken action to mitigate the
impacts of reduced funding levels on our installation infrastructure.
 Together, we must continue to find innovative, cost effective means of
delivering quality facilities and services to our Soldiers, Families, and
Civilians that live and work on our installations.
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
BACKUP
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
HQDA Partnerships POCs
•
Garrison Commanders should use IGSA authority to maximize
efficiencies and economies of scale, including cost reduction.
– Only ASA (IE&E) can approve
– New Army EXORD currently being staffed
– Public facing website will provide up to date information on all
partnerships
•
For more information about the Army partnerships:
– visit our website: http://www.acsim.army.mil/partnerships/
– email one of the following OACSIM contacts:
• Ivan Bolden, Chief of Partnerships: [email protected]
• Donna Wilhoit, OACSIM: [email protected]
• Pressley Carr, OACSIM: [email protected]
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management