By Ann Roosevelt
The Army’s Grow the Force initiative has not developed a “transparent and comprehensive” funding plan, according to a new government report.
The Government Accountability Office says decision makers in Congress need to understand the “full magnitude of the funds needed and weigh competing defense priorities,” in its Jan. 18 letter to the defense committees, “Force Structure–Need for Greater Transparency for the Army’s Grow the Force Initiative Funding Plan (GAO-08-354R).
The Army’s Grow the Force funding plan lacks transparency “because Army budget materials and other documentation do not indicate how the Army developed the cost estimates that served as the basis of its $70.2 billion funding plan to grow the force,” the report said.
The Army’s force structure plan in February 2007 wanted to increase active brigade combat teams by six to 76 and the number of support brigades from 212 to 225. The initiative would permanently increase Army end strength by about 74,200 in the active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve by fiscal year 2013.
Army budget officials told auditors they didn’t have a lot of time to put together the funding plan before the president’s budget was submitted in February 2007.
“However, according to best practices, cost estimates should be transparent, comprehensive, and easily replicated and updated to help ensure the validity of the estimate,” the GAO letter said.
Additionally, the Army’s funding plan is not comprehensive, auditors said, and “may be somewhat understated” because some costs were not included and some other factors are still evolving that could impact the funding plan.
“For example, the $70.2 billion funding plan did not include over $2.5 billion for health care and educational support assistance associated with increasing personnel levels,” the report said.
Also, in October 2007, the Army chief of staff announced a plan to accelerate the Grow the Force implementation timelines for the active Army and Army National Guard from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2010. This could increase costs, such as budgeting for the hiring of military and civilian personnel sooner than programmed, the letter said.
GAO also said the Army was working on the specifics of an expanded Army in February 2007, which could mean that changes could add more cost.
“For example, the costs to procure heavy or stryker brigade combat team–related equipment are more expensive than for infantry brigades,” the report said. “An Army procurement official provided us standard equipment estimates for brigade combat teams: Infantry ($590 million); Stryker ($1.7 billion to 1.9 billion); and Heavy ($1.2 billion to 2.5 billion).”
Army officials told auditors the plan has been revised, but not approved as final yet.
The Army can update its Grow the Force initiative funding plan to reflect a more transparent and comprehensive approach, because without more complete information, decision makers could have difficulty understanding the basis for any future estimates the Army submits and weighing competing priorities.
GAO recommends the Defense Secretary require the Army to provide Congress an updated Grow the Force funding plan to support congressional oversight of the fiscal year 2009 budget submission, and document how it developed any such updated funding plan.
DoD generally agreed with GAO’s recommendations. Specifically, DoD said it would provide more information on the initiative to Congress no later than March 30, and “maintain a transparent audit trail including documentation of the steps used to develop the Grow the Force funding plan.”
GAO plans to issue a separate report in spring 2008 in response to the authorization act’s requirement for auditors to report on the Army’s transformation to the modular force in fiscal year 2008. It will also report on the Army’s planning and budgeting process for Grow the Force facilities.