About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

PLRD-82-11 1 (1981-10-21)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabcpc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE g I, 7 O WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 PROCUREMENT. LOGISTICS. AND READINESS DIVISION B-204454by OCTOBER 21,1981 The Honorable Allen E. Ertel RELEASED House of Representatives 1if 111N N if1 Dear Mr. Ertel: 116760 Subject: Planned Realinement of Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania (PLRD-82-11) In your December 15, 1980, letter, you asked us to review the Army's current proposal to realine Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. You expressed concerns about differences between the Army's initial and current studies supporting the realinement decision and our August 23, 1979, report which questioned the Army's use of the initial study as a basis for the realinement decision. The Army's current study compares two realinement alterna- tives with Fort Indiantown Gap as it is now operating. Alter- native I, the Army's preferred option, proposes terminating active Army operation of Fort Indiantown Gap, transferring instal- lation control to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and assigning to Fort Meade, Maryland, the mission of providing logistical and administrative support to Reserve units in the geographical area. Alternative II proposes reducing Fort Indiantown Gap to a subordi- nate installation of Fort Meade and transferring most Reserve unit support to Fort Meade. The Army estimates that implementing alternative I would result in one-time costs of $1.3 million and annual savings of $3.3 million and that implementing alternative II would result in one-time savings of $1.2 million and annual savings of $2.7 million. Despite miscellaneous errors, omissions, and questionable procedures in the Army's current study, we believe that savings are possible if the Army chooses either of the two proposed alternatives. On the basis of our review, we estimate that unde.r alternative I, the Army would incur one-time costs of $5.6 mil- lion and would save $2.1 million annually. Under alternative II, we estimate that the Army would incur one-time costs of $2.9 mil- lion and would save $2.2 million annually. The Army's cost and savings items which we questioned are discussed in detail in enclosures I through IV. The following table shows GAO's and the Army's projected costs and savings under both alternatives. (945700)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most