Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1983

10

Construction, Facilities, and Real Property

To create an Army of Excellence also requires improvements in the seemingly mundane but actually essential nonbattlefield activities associated with facilities and installations for training and housing troops. In performing these activities the Army assumes such roles as architect and builder, real estate broker, landlord, and policeman. As architect and builder, the Army designs and builds, or renovates facilities and installations to accommodate new organizations and new weapons systems worldwide, and thereby supports force modernization. In undertaking this task, energy conservation and environmental concerns, as well as improvements in living and working conditions are considered. As landlord the Army maintains the land and structures used for training and housing troops. This is a major concern, because many of the installations and buildings were acquired before or during the 1940s. As real estate broker, the Army buys and sells land that is no longer needed for training and housing troops; and as policeman, protects the land and structures from vandalism, and the people within, from crime. In FY 83, the Army made significant improvements in all these activities. However, the funding, as in previous years, did not keep pace with the needs, and, despite the progress made, these facilities continued to decline steadily.

In FY 83, the Congress appropriated $930 million for Military Construction, Army (MCA) and allocated this appropriation among various categories of need. The largest portion, $241 million, went for investment in troop housing, medical, community, and related facilities, including $15 million for a barracks with a dining hall at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; $15 million for dining facilities modernization in Germany; $22 million for hospital renovation in Germany; and $2.6 million for a child care center at Fort Devens, Massachusetts. Operations and training received $167 million, including $43 million for a Command

[183]

and Control Facility of Fort McPherson, Georgia, and Battalion Headquarters and classrooms at Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Carson, Colorado; and Fort Polk, Louisiana. Congress authorized $228 million for maintenance and production facilities to equip the field forces, and another $88 million for supply, R&D, administrative, and utilities facilities, in overall support of the Army. Some $17 million went for energy conservation, $4 million for water pollution, and $9 million for correction of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) deficiencies. Congress appropriated $27 million for minor construction worldwide; $138 million for general authorization planning and design; and $8 million for construction management services in support of construction projects funded by foreign nations, where U.S. forces are the sole or primary user. It appropriated another $3 million for access roads.

The MCA program benefited this year from the worldwide implementation of a Military Construction computer system called Programming, Administration, and Execution (PAX). The system provides Army engineer offices and interactive access to centralized data bases allowing them to prepare and track MCA projects. PAX also provides an international electronic mail system integrated with detail project information in the centralized data bases. Approvals are pending to add automated systems, which would assist users in performing economic analysis, stationing analysis, reviewing environmental impact data and real property assets, and obtaining facilities space criteria data.

The development of other automated systems to aid military construction continued this year. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) developed the CAEADS to support the design of military facilities. The Army will integrate this system based on a central source of design information used by all the disciplines in the design process: users, planners, architects, engineers, specification writers, and cost estimators and drafters. When completed, the system will support the military design process, starting the initiation of a requirement for a facility and continuing through to the design and production of working drawings, specifications, and cost estimates.

The Army upgraded the Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS), which provides information for evaluating socioeconomic changes caused by DOD activities. The improvements will provide an expanded and more current database as well as improved regional economic modeling for evaluating the socioeconomic impact of military construction. EIFS allows DOD activities to prepare economic impact statements in a more timely manner at significantly lower cost.

[184]

The Decision Support System activity consists of fielding the latest computer hardware and software communications technology in managing the MCA program. The Army has linked prototype voice input to automatic retrieval of standard programs, with color graphic video and printer display, ready for field testing.

The PAVER, noted in Chapter 8, provides the facility, district, or city engineer with a cost-saving pavement management system that optimizes maintenance and repair funding by helping direct funds to the repair projects where they are most needed. PAVER allows the engineer to store and analyze pavement data pertinent to cost-effective maintenance scheduling and pavement design. Based on the Prototype Evaluation Test conducted at Fort Eustis, Virginia, this system should help reduce the average cost of road maintenance management at Army installations by 50-'75 percent. PAVER, which the Army has approved as a Class III computer system, is currently being implemented at several CONUS Air Force and Army installations. Present system users include representatives from all three military services, cities in the U.S. and Canada, and the Tulsa District of the USACE.

The Army established a Building Loads and System Thermodynamics (BLAST) support office at the University of Illinois to provide software and engineering support to DOD BLAST users. BLAST is a comprehensive set of programs for predicting energy consumption and energy system performance and cost in buildings.

The MCA program also benefited this year from a DA organizational change. In October 1982, management of the MCA, RPMA and Army family housing (AFH) accounts was integrated into the responsibilities of the DACE. This has given them the ability for the first time to adjust funding levels between accounts and to respond more effectively and promptly to the needs of Army facilities.

The Corps of Engineers also awarded contracts for the construction of projects funded by other Department of Defense agencies. The total amount of construction awards for each agency during FY 83 are as noted in Table 18.

TABLE 18 - ARMY CONSTRUCTION AWARDS, FISCAL YEAR 1983

[185]

The COE also provided engineering and construction management support to eight foreign countries: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Egypt, Sudan, Honduras, Japan, and Korea. The Corps continued to construct the U.S. Geological Survey mission complex in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and assisted the Department of State in construction of a new embassy complex in Moscow, USSR.

The Corps' major support to a foreign country during FY 83, as in past years, centered in Saudi Arabia. During the year, the Corps continued its "Nation Building" schedule for the Saudi Arabian government (SAG) under three programs: the Engineer Assistance Agreement (EAA) program, and Saudi Naval Expansion Program (SNEP), and the Peace Hawk-Peace Sun program. Work remaining on the SANG modernization program was essentially limited to the closing out of construction contracts that were physically complete. In addition, the COE, under the Saudi Arabian Army Ordnance Corps Program (SOCP), continued to work with and assist in the management and modernizing of their logistics system. At the end of the fiscal year, the total approved U.S. government case value for the Saudi Arabian programs amounted to $21.7 billion (SOCP $2.5 billion, EAA $12.3 billion, SNEP $5.6 billion, SANG $0.4 billion, Peace Hawk-Peace Sun $0.7 billion, and other work $0.2 billion).

Other construction by the COE in Middle Eastern countries and the Sudan included the Armor Rebuild Facility at Amman, Jordan, for the Jordanian armed forces; Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force bases in Oman, including airfield facilities at Masirah Island, Thumrait, and Seeb for U.S. forces; a Biomedical Research Laboratory in Cairo, Egypt, for the U.S. Navy and funded by them; and the design and construction of facility improvements in the Khartoum and Port Sudan area, for the government of the Sudan.

In Honduras, the Corps continued construction of a U.S. Air Force airfield at Comayagua. Project completion is scheduled for July 1984. The Corps also completed an austere RMTC at Puerto Castilla on the Gulf Coast of Honduras. The Corps erected the RMTC at a cost of $456,000 with FMS credit funds from El Salvador and Honduras.

During FY 83, Congress provided $5.5 million in MCA funds for the COE to support host nation funded construction in Japan and Korea supplemented facilities funded and constructed by the U.S. government. The governments of Japan and Korea designed, funded, and awarded construction contracts and oversaw the production of facilities for U.S. forces. Japan budgeted $288 million for the program. Korea provided $66 million.

[186]

The COE continued to provide engineering and construction support to the Navy. In FY 83, it awarded construction contracts amounting to $7.9 million for such projects as Aircraft Rinse Facilities in Futema, Japan, at a cost of $2 million, and Steam and Condensate Facilities at Atsugi, Japan, at a cost of $1,700,000.

The Army undertook a number of initiatives in the area of facilities and real property this year. These actions involved the establishment, expansion, repair, upgrading, relocation, and acquisition of Army facilities and installations.

The COE acts as Executive Agent for the DOD Recruiting Facilities program. During 1983, the Corps completed 2,472 actions involving the establishment of new recruiting offices and the relocation, expansion, and upgrading of existing offices. At the end of the fiscal year, the four services had approximately 7,750 recruiting offices.

To aid facilities and installation planning design, this year the Corps took a number of actions, besides the development of the CAEADS mentioned earlier. The OCE published 22 facility support plans (FSPs) and 150 facility planning worksheets (FPWs) to assist installation planners and programmers in identifying facilities required to support the fielding of new systems and organizations. The Corps also utilized the ETIS, which is a user friendly, remote terminal system that assists Army planners to forecast and mitigate the critical and economic impact of any proposed action on an installation. The Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign operates and maintains this system and provides training to all DOD users as well as city and state planning commissions. In addition, this fiscal year the Corps used a microcomputer system to streamline management at the Fort Ord, California, Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH), which resulted in savings of $25,000 or the cost of the system. The implementation of the microcomputer system brought about improved procedures, more flexible management support, and a better quality of overall operations.

At several Army installations this year the Corps developed and demonstrated a technique for rapidly constructing improved temporary living and storage facilities for use during mobilization. The technique involves inflating a membrane and spraying it with polyurethane foam. Low-skill personnel can produce polyurethane foam domes up to 50 feet in diameter in a single work day. Troop labor can erect a structure designed to house troops, including concrete floor, windows, wiring, exterior and interior

[187]

coatings, for $9.00 per square foot, while a contractor can build the same structure for $15.00 per square foot. The Army is using the demonstration domes built this year for office storage space and for range houses.

The Backlog of Maintenance and Repair (BMAR) is a measurement at the end of each fiscal year of required maintenance and repair work remaining unaccomplished because of inadequate resources. In this sense, accomplishment means obligation of funds or start of work by civilian employees or military personnel. BMAR is synonymous with deferred requirements and includes those resources essential to correct facility deficiencies. Maintenance involves the day-to-day cyclic performance of work required to prevent incipient failures and further deterioration of a facility. Repair consists of work required to restore a failed or failing real property facility or component to such condition that the Army can use it effectively for its designated purpose. The lack of resources during the 1970s, compounded by a soaring inflation rate, and the rapid deterioration of aging facilities, resulted in the total overall Army BMAR to reach over $3 billion by the end of FY 81. The Army program for the remainder of the 1980s was designed to reduce the BMAR. The downturn actually occurred in FY 82 when the BMAR stopped growing for the first time in over ten years. The Operation and Maintenance, Army appropriation BMAR declined by $24 million, while actual direct obligations applied to maintenance and repair needs and BMAR projects amounted to $1.333 billion, a 45.8 percent increase over FY 81. This improved resource program continued in FY 83 bringing the OMA BMAR down to $1.76 billion. Funding programs for FY 84 and the budget for FY 85 continue to provide resources to allow for BMAR reduction although only at about $7 million per year. As the backlog reduces, the condition of facilities will continue to improve resulting in better living and working conditions for U.S. forces worldwide.

During FY 83, the Corps of Engineers acquired 276 thousand acres of land for the Army using military and civil works appropriations at a cost of $88 million. The largest acquisition consisted of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Fort Carson, Colorado, which involved 246,200 acres of federal, state, and private lands. Continuing its program of land acquisition for other federal agencies, the Corps acquired 1,288 acres of land for the Air Force. This included approximately 500 acres with improvements for an estimated $8.2 million to expand clear zones at ten Air Force bases. The Corps purchased 17 tracts containing 1,475 acres at a cost of $3.19 million for the Department of the Interior's Big Thicket National Preserve in Texas. This brought the total acquisition for this project through FY 83 to 1,292 tracts

[188]

consisting of 75,374 acres at a cost of $72.82 million. The Corps obtained 54 tracts consisting of 541.92 acres at a cost of $13.1 million for the Department of Energy's Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program. This brought total acquisition for this program through FY 83 to 1,140 tracts consisting of 6,104 acres at a cost of $138.47 million. The Corps bought 6,131 acres for $5.978 million during FY 83 for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Tensas National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. This brought acquisition for the project through FY 83 to 16,760 acres at a cost of $15.478 million. During FY 83, the Corps paid $3.1 million in relocation assistance benefits to 330 applicants displaced by its land acquisition activities.

At the close of FY 83, the DA controlled approximately 12.2 million acres of military land worldwide and 11.8 million acres of civil works lands which, with improvements, had an acquisition cost of $18.8 billion and $19.4 billion, respectively. During the fiscal year, the federal government disposed of 7,444 acres of military and civil land and improvements having an acquisition a value of $4.9 million. In addition, the Army declared and reported to GSA for disposal 71,472 acres of excess federal lands having an acquisition cost of $238.5 million. At the end of the fiscal year, the Army had leased or rented 27,493 parcels of land covering 9.2 million acres to others. These outgrants authorized other military departments, federal agencies, state and local governments, and private organizations or individuals to use Army lands for a wide range of purposes, such as agricultural, grazing, recreational, public park, banking, educational, and rights-of-way.

Executive Order 12348, dated 25 February 1982, requires each executive agency to review its real property holdings and report as excess those lands which are not utilized, are underutilized, or are not being put. to optimum use. One of the purposes of the Executive Order is to offer such property for sale with the intent to reduce the national debt. In keeping with the intents of the Executive Order the Army scheduled seventeen installation utilization surveys for calendar year 1983 plans to conduct fourteen installation utilization surveys in calendar year 1984.

Executive Order 12411, dated 29 March 1983, institutes fundamental changes in the manner in which all federal work space is managed. The order directs the heads of executive agencies to undertake actions for improved utilization, and delegates authority to the GSA to establish government-wide objectives and regulations. Objectives of the program include improving utilization of all work space and related furnishings, achieving agency-wide office space utilization rates of 135 net square feet or less per

[189]

person, and reducing total work space inventory by 10 percent. The initial report for the Army to GSA in September 1983 showed an overall Army utilization rate of 127 net square feet per person for GSA-assigned office space, and 173 gross square feet per person for agency controlled office space. This is within the initial GSA objective.

The FY 83 MCA program contained $210.5 million for construction of facilities in support of new tactical systems. The primary beneficiaries of this expenditure were MLRS, Patriot, BFVs, and the DIVAD.

Physical Security

One of the objectives of the Army's Physical Security program is to provide security for its vulnerable underground munitions depots. In this endeavor, CERL developed a containment concept for use by underground munitions storage facilities in the event of an accidental internal explosion. Scientists are now conducting tests at the Naval Surface Weapons Center (NSWC) and at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to develop material for a new barrier system inside storage facilities. The concept will provide numerous benefits to the military. Its use will decrease the time needed for outlay from eighteen to three hours, and increase survivability, security, material handling, and safety. Other advantages include facility tonedown, concealed weapon maintenance movement and weapon transfer, and provisions that would allow troops to be concealed while practicing uploading. The CERL concept proceeded to the 90 percent design phase for a $60 million Air Force sites in the United States. For this project, the Air Force was able to reduce the real estate requirement from 81 to 9 acres, and the security force from 465 to 165 personnel. The Army and Navy are evaluating other extensions of this concept, including installation of an underground depot for Kuwait.

The Army also is developing a novel, yet simple, shock isolation concept to increase the vulnerability levels for ADP equipment so that it can survive the ground shock from nuclear blasts and remain at a working level. The Army is formulating the concept in support of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Project 85 and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Cheyenne Mountain Complex.

In March 1983, the Department of the Army Physical Security Review Board initiated a review, of problems and issues pertaining to physical security equipment. The mission of the review task force was to review the management of the Army Physical Security equipment program, discern issues, and establish

[190]

objectives that correct identified deficiencies. Each of the task force's four workgroups-policy; requirements, development, and acquisition; fielding and support; and concepts and doctrine-first identified goals and objectives within its area of interest and then determined those problems which inhibit the attainment of the various goals. As a result of efforts so far, action is under way to develop or define policy, provide increased resources to expedite the development of requirement documents, influence organizational changes to finish increased support to field commanders, and acquire additional monetary resources to allow for the procurement of required equipment.

During FY 83, the Army discovered 224 weapons missing from arms storage facilities. The U.S. Army Military Police Operations Agency (FOA) attributed weapon losses during this period to negligence on the part of the individual to whom the weapon was assigned, theft by members of the unit, or by unknown persons. Ammunition and explosive losses amounted to 242,496 items. The military police believed that the losses were attributed to theft of items by members of the unit, by unknown persons, or to inventory shortages. Losses of conventional arms, ammunition, and explosives continued to be single weapons or small quantities of arms and munitions. The military police attributed the reduction in losses of conventional arms and munitions during 1983 to a continuation of the policy of providing security to weapon storage areas and an Armywide command emphasis on management of weapons from the time of their production until destruction (i.e., throughout their "life cycle").

Terrorist acts in FY 83, sponsored by sovereign states, organized political entities, or individual groups, perpetrated to achieve political objectives were a threat to the U.S. armed forces, which compelled the Army to take measures to prevent and counter terrorism. In April 1983, the Army published Training Circular 19-16, Countering Terrorism on U.S. Army Installations. This circular consolidates Army doctrine, policy, and guidance on operations for countering terrorism and is directed to the person developing a special threat plan for an Army installation or unit. In June 1983, the Army published Department of the Army Pamphlet 190-52-1, Personnel Security Precautions Against Acts of Terrorism, which provides general guidance to soldiers and their families concerning precautionary measures against acts of terrorism. Additionally, on 15 August 1983, the Army published the revised Army Regulation 190-52, Countering Terrorism and Other Major Disruptions on Military Installations. This regulation outlines Army policy on countering terrorism and on personal protective measures against terrorist acts. It also provides planning guidance for handling major disruptions on military installations.

[191]

Army leadership in combating terrorism during FY 83 will continue into FY 84.

Also, to improve physical security this year, the Army changed a number of Army regulations. Change 2 to Army Regulation 190-11 included the following revisions: exceptions granted under the previous Army Regulation 190-11 (30 March 1977) are valid and need not be resubmited; elimination of the double-door requirement for arms rooms; addition of the Navy high security shrouded hasps and the recommendation to use them at category I and II storage facilities; elimination of the requirements already addressed by Department of Defense Manual 5100.76, Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives. Change 2 also established the responsibility for the locking hardware program, the weapon racks and security container program, as well as the publishing of a list of DOD and DA approved standardized physical security equipment, including an intrusion detection system. The Army published the revised regulation on 15 July 1983 with an effective date of 15 August 1983.

During the period 25 February 1983 to 31 March 1983, the Army Military Police Operations Agency, with input from appropriate major commands and the Department of the Army staff, revised Army Regulation 190-15, Physical Security of the Alternate Joint Communications Center (AJCC). The objective of the .revision was to update the physical security program for the Center and to appropriate manpower and equipment according to local needs.

On 25 July 1983, the Army Military Police Operations Agency, after receiving input from all military departments and DLA, submitted the final draft of Army Regulation 190-16, Joint Service Regulation on Physical Security. The purpose of the new regulation was to implement standardized general policy on physical security system planning, threat statements, control of access to installations, aircraft security, security of bulk petroleum assets, and security of communication facilities. In September 1983, the Army Adjutant General forwarded the completed draft regulation to the military departments and DLA for authentication and assignment of a publication number.

This year the Army revised Army Regulation 190-18, Physical Security of U.S. Army Museums. Significant changes include: all weapons will be registered into the Department of Defense Central Registry, keys to museums will be maintained separately from arms storage and intrusion detection system keys, keys to museums and displays will be removed from the installation only under the commander's authorization, weapons will be marked with catalog numbers, and the use of master or multiple keys

[192]

system is prohibited. The Army has scheduled publication of the revised regulation for the second quarter of FY 84.

This fiscal year, the Army made steady progress in programs concerned with construction, facilities, and real property. Such activities, as the development of automated systems to aid military construction, including planning and design, and the construction of installations and facilities to accommodate new organizations and new weapons systems, supported force modernization. However, despite a reduction in the Backlog of Maintenance and Repair, inadequate resources permitted facilities to continue to decline faster than the Army could make improvements.

[193]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 9 March 2004