Guam Realignment Annual Report 2010

Interagency coordInatIon
January 25, 2010 v1
group of Inspectors general
for guam realIgnment
annual report

sectIon 2835 of the natIonal defense
authorIzatIon act for fIscal year 2010

[february 1, 2010]
(Public Law 111-84)

On October 28, 2009, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010,
Public Law 111-84. Section 2835 established the Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General
for the Guam Realignment with the following duties.

PUBLIC LAW 111-84
It shall be the duty of the Interagency Coordination Group to conduct, supervise, and
coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment, handling, and expenditure of
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on Guam
and of the programs, operations, and contracts carried out utilizing
such funds, including—

(A) the oversight and accounting of the obligation and expenditure of
such funds;
(B) the monitoring and review of construction activities funded by such
funds;
(C) the monitoring and review of contracts funded by such funds;
(D) the monitoring and review of the transfer of such funds and associated
information between and among departments, agencies, and entities of
the United States and private and nongovernmental entities;
(E) the maintenance of records on the use of such funds to facilitate
future audits and investigations of the use of such funds; and
(F) the monitoring and review of the implementation of the Defense Posture
Review Initiative relating to the realignment of military installations and
the relocation of military personnel on Guam.

Not later than February 1 of each year, the chairperson of the Interagency Coordination
Group shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Secretary of the Interior a report summarizing, for the preceding calendar year,
the activities of the Interagency Coordination Group during such year and the activities
under programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available for military construction on Guam. Each report shall include, for the year
covered by the report, a detailed statement of all obligations, expenditures, and revenues
associated with such construction.

See Appendix A for the legislative mandates for Guam realignment in the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2010.

Message from the Chairman,
Interagency Coordination Group
I am pleased to submit the first annual report of the Interagency Coordination Group of
Inspectors General for Guam Realignment to the congressional defense committees, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior. The annual report, as required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), covers the
reporting period January 1 to December 31, 2009.
The strategic deployment of United States and Japanese forces provides security and
strengthens our deterrent capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. The Defense Posture Review
Initiative provides a framework for the future U.S. force structure in Japan and the U.S.
Marine Corps realignment to Guam. I deployed teams to Guam, U.S. Pacific Command,
and Japan to identify the key organizations involved in the Guam realignment effort, obtain
an understanding of the magnitude of efforts required, and begin to identify areas of risk
associated with the realignment.
In November 2009, I held the first meeting of the Interagency Coordination Group of
Inspectors General for Guam Realignment to discuss the legislative requirements and request
information on oversight initiatives planned or completed. The members of this group are
the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior and other Inspectors General as
appropriate. The Interagency Coordination Group recognizes that the realignment may present
challenges in operational readiness, quality of life, contract management, contractor oversight,
asset accountability, and financial management. A key factor impacting these challenges is
the infrastructure development on Guam. The Interagency Coordination Group will consider
the risks associated with these challenges when developing an oversight plan that effectively
and efficiently utilizes our audit and investigative resources. In addition, I am participating as
an observer on the Department of Defense’s Guam Oversight Council and I have designated a
representative to participate as an observer on the Department of Defense’s Guam Executive
Council.
The Interagency Coordination Group will provide transparency and accountability to the
American people and to the U.S. military forces affected by this realignment. The group will
also provide an accounting of funds received from the government of Japan. The Interagency
Coordination Group is committed to providing independent, objective, and relevant
information in achieving accountability, integrity, and efficiency in the Guam realignment.
I want to thank those participating as part of the Interagency Coordination Group and those
Federal and Department of Defense agencies involved in supporting this effort. As the group
moves forward, Congress and senior leadership throughout the U.S. Government will use these
oversight efforts to improve the economy and efficiency of vital programs and operations,
sustain the readiness of U.S. forces, and minimize the impact on the citizens of Guam.

Gordon S. Heddell
Inspector General

Guam RealiGnment RepoRt
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

FebRuaRy 1, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 2835 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 designates
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense as the Chairman of the Interagency
Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment (ICG). The Chairman is
required to provide an annual report to the congressional defense committees, the Secretary
of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior on the activities of the ICG and the programs
and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military
construction on Guam. This report contains data collected from multiple organizations.
The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General has not idependently verified
the data provided.

The Defense Posture Review Initiative, initiated by the Secretary of State and Secretary
of Defense with their Japanese counterparts, serves as the framework for the future of
U.S. force structure in Japan and the U.S. Marine Corps realignment to Guam. The Guam
realignment will be one of the largest movements of military assets in decades while
helping to maintain a robust military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. In order to
facilitate, manage, and execute requirements associated with the relocation of U.S. Marine
Corps assets from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established
the Joint Guam Program Office. Expected construction costs for facility and infrastructure
development requirements relating to the realignment are approximately $10.27 billion, of
which the government of Japan (GOJ) has agreed to provide up to $6.09 billion.

This first report identifies the programs and operations funded with appropriated amounts
or funds otherwise made available for military construction on Guam in calendar year 2009
to include:

• DoD obligated approximately $60.3 million and expended approximately
$35.7 million. Other Federal agencies obligated approximately $7.8 million and
expended approximately $3.4 million. (Section 1)
• GOJ provided revenues valued at $336 million with approximately $369,000 in
interest associated with those revenues. (Section 2)
• DoD identified 102 projects and programs with costs totaling approximately
$17.5 million with an estimated completion cost of approximately $36.1 million.
Other Federal agencies identified 4 projects and programs with costs totaling
approximately $7.7 million with an estimated completion cost of approximately
$201.2 million. (Section 3)
• DoD identified operating expenses of approximately $19.8 million. Other Federal
agencies identified operating expenses of approximately $666,000. (Section 4)
• DoD and other Federal agencies identified 15 contracts and 6 grants with obligations
of approximately $53.1 million (Section 5).

FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Proposed Actions on Guam

R i t i d ian P o i n t

Munitions Storage Upgrades

North Gate and
Access Road
Army Earth
Covered Magazine Air Mobility Command
lAir Embarkation
~-...;,."... ______ P ati
USMC Main Cantonment P oi nt
and Housing

Philippine Sea

Oka

Agallll
BlIJ'

O ro
Poi

Pacific Ocean
Legend
o Route Number
Landing Zone
F acpi
P o int Surface Danger Zone
C:::::: i 000 Lands
~ USMC Main Cantonment and Housing
- Ammunition Storage Area
c::=:::J Army Weapons Emplacement Site
Roadway Projects
Access Road
Route 15 Realignment I New Construction
Waterfront Projects
s~w Aircraft Carrier Enroute Path
CJ Proposed Channel Improve ments
CJ Existing Channel
C-J Minimal Aircraft Carrier Turning Radius
Cocos
Training
IS~ Ag a
P oi nt Convoy Course Existing Road
Convoy Course New Road
Advanced Motor Vehicles
- Operations Course (AMVOC )
Military Operations and
Miles
4
Urban Train ing (MOUT)
I Non-Firing Maneuver Training Area
6 12
Kilometers
Safety Buffer ISurface Danger Zone
Live Fire Range

FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Table of Contents
Background 1

Efforts of the Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam 7
Realignment (Section 2835(e)(1))

Section 1. U.S. Government Obligation and Expenditure Data 11
(Section 2835(e)(1)(A))

Section 2. Government of Japan Revenue 15
(Section 2835(e)(1)(C))

Section 3. Project and Program Costs 19
(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Section 4. Operating Expenses 29
(Section 2835(e)(1)(D))

Section 5. Contracts, Grants, Agreements, or Other Funding Mechanisms Data 33
(Section 2835(e)(1)(E))

Appendices

A. Legislative Mandates for Guam Realignment in the National Defense 39
Authorization Act for FY 2010
B. Federal Spending in Guam Not Directly Related to the Realignment 47
C. Guam-Related Completed Audits and Government Accountability 49
Office Testimony
D. Acronyms 51
E. Endnotes 53
F. Source Documentation 55

FebRuaRy 1, 2010

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) entering Apra Harbor, Guam

FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Background
u.S. militaRy RealiGnment
The Defense Posture Review Initiative (DPRI), initiated by the Secretary of
State and Secretary of Defense with their Japanese counterparts, serves as the
framework for the future of U.S. force structure in Japan and the U.S. Marine Corps
realignment to Guam. The Guam realignment will be one of the largest movements
of military assets in decades and will help to maintain a robust military presence
in the Asia-Pacific region. Under the command of the Joint Region Marianas, the
two largest military bases on Guam are Naval Base Guam and Andersen Air Force
Base. Since 2000, the U.S. Pacific Command has built up air and naval forces on
Guam to strengthen U.S. deterrence and power projection in Asia, specifically crisis
response, counter-terrorism, and contingencies in the Western Pacific. Guam is a U.S. territory considered
strategically significant to U.S. forward deployments in the Western Pacific. The island, three times the size
of Washington, D.C., is home to about 173,000 residents. Figure 1 shows the location of Guam and overseas
distances to various locations in the Asia-Pacific region.

Figure 1. Guam and Overseas Distances

Defense Posture Review Initiative. The purpose of the DPRI was to develop a common security view;
to review roles, missions, and capabilities; and to review force posture changes. Included in the various
DPRI initiatives are the relocation of U.S. Marine Corps personnel to Guam; the return of selected bases and
facilities to the goverment of Japan (GOJ); and the consolidation of some of the remaining U.S. bases and
facilities in Japan. The DPRI includes plans to:
• Relocate the functions of two U.S. air bases from urbanized to rural areas;
• Relocate more than 8,000 III Marine Expeditionary Force personnel and their associated dependents
from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam;
• Co-locate U.S. and Japanese command and control capabilities;
• Deploy U.S. missile defense capabilities in Japan, in conjunction with Japan’s own deployments; and
• Improve operational coordination between U.S. and Japanese forces.

1
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

As part of the military realignment, the Department of Defense (DoD) anticipates total or partial return of
multiple facilities to the GOJ. The facilities may include Camp Foster (Camp Zukeran), Camp Lester (Camp
Kuwae), Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Camp Kinser (Makiminato Service Area), and Naha Military
Port. The U.S. Marine Corps forces remaining on Okinawa, Japan will consist of Marine Air-Ground Task
Force elements such as command, ground, aviation, and combat service support, as well as a base support
capability. These activities will strengthen capabilities and maintain deterrence in the region while reducing
impacts of U.S. presence on local communities in Japan.

SiGniFicant eventS
Since the DPRI was initiated, several significant events have occurred in the Guam military realignment
(Figure 2). The U.S. Government and GOJ have developed interrelated initiatives and plans to facilitate the
realignment of U.S. forces from Okinawa, Japan to Guam by a targeted completion date of 2014.

Figure 2. Significant Events in the Guam Military Realignment Timeline

U.S.‑Japan Alliance. On October 29, 2005, the Security Consultative Committee approved the “U.S.-Japan
Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future,” in which the United States and GOJ agreed to
realign U.S. and Japanese forces throughout the Pacific. The United States and Japan reviewed bilateral roles,
missions, and capabilities, particularly those of the U.S. forces and the Japan Self-Defense Forces.

Roadmap for Realignment Implementation. On May 1, 2006, the “U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment
Implementation” documented specific initiatives, plans, and implementation schedules for the realignment
of these forces. The realignment includes the relocation of the Futenma airfield flight functions by a targeted
completion date of 2014; realignment in Okinawa, Japan; identification of candidate facilities for total or
partial return to the GOJ; and relocation of the Air Self Defense Force Air Defense Command units to Yokota
Air Base.

2
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Joint Guam Program Office. On August 25, 2006, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the
Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO), reporting to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment, to facilitate, manage, and execute requirements associated with the relocation of U.S. Marine
Corps assets from Okinawa, Japan to Guam.

JGPO will lead the coordinated planning efforts and synchronize the funding requirements between DoD
Components and other stakeholders. The proposed planning efforts include:
• Relocating U.S. Marine Corps command, air, ground, and logistics units from Okinawa, Japan to
Guam;
• Enhancing infrastructure and logistics capabilities for military training and operations;
• Rehabilitating or constructing operational, support, and training facilities on Guam and at other
locations within the Northern Mariana Islands; and
• Constructing or upgrading infrastructure such as utility systems, roads, and waste facilities to support
the relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Forces.

USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) approaching
carrier berthing at Apra Harbor

JGPO also works closely with the
governments of Japan and Guam, Federal
agencies, and Congress to manage the
comprehensive realignment effort. It has
additional responsibilities to coordinate
DoD’s conduct of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for moving U.S. Marine
Corps forces to Guam. JGPO receives
planning assistance from the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) in
conducting analyses and developing an
acquisition strategy for infrastructure needed
to support DoD’s operational requirements.

Secretary of State Clinton and
Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs
Nakasone signing the bilateral
Agreement (Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Japan Photo)

Bilateral Governmental Agreement. On February 17, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed
the bilateral “Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the U.S. of America
Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their
Dependents from Okinawa to Guam.” To support the realignment effort, the GOJ agreed to provide up to
$6.09 billion.1 The GOJ agreed to support the United States in its development of necessary facilities and
infrastructure on Guam.

3
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

F-22s on patrol over Pacific Ocean

Marine Corps personnel from the Okinaw
and an Indonesian service member carry
and disaster relief effor

Implementation Guidance for Government of Japan Funded Projects. On June 30, 2009, the two
governments approved implementation guidance for projects funded by GOJ cash contributions and further
determined that:
• Accrued interest on the GOJ cash contributions can fund relocation projects if they receive proper
approval;
• DoD will provide the Ministry of Defense of Japan a detailed description and cost estimate of each
specific project;
• NAVFAC will execute all contracts in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations; and
• Projects funded by GOJ cash contributions will be awarded separately from U.S. Government funded
projects.

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. As required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), DoD continues to prepare an EIS to document and analyze the environmental impacts
associated with the Guam military realignment efforts. DoD completed the draft EIS in November 2009,
and the final EIS is scheduled for completion in July 2010. Only after the Record of Decision for the EIS is
signed will DoD finalize its Guam Joint Military Master Plan for facilities development. The construction
contract awards may be delayed if the EIS is not completed as planned.

impact to RealiGnment oF u.S. FoRceS
According to March 2008 testimony provided by the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, the GOJ approved
a comprehensive legislative package that authorized financing to build housing on Guam for U.S. Marine
Corps forces relocating from Okinawa, Japan. Additionally, the GOJ initiated the environmental assessment
needed to implement construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility on Okinawa, Japan.

The U.S. Government and GOJ agreed to relocate the flight functions of the Futenma airfield to a new facility
in a less crowded area of Okinawa, Japan. According to the “United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment
Implementation” the:

• “...consolidation and land returns south of Kadena depend on completing the relocation of
III MEF [Marine Expeditionary Force] personnel and dependents from Okinawa to Guam.
• The III MEF relocation from Okinawa to Guam is dependent on: (1) tangible progress
toward completion of the FRF [Futenma Replacement Facility], and (2) Japan’s financial
contributions to fund development of required facilities and infrastructure on Guam.”

4
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Japan Air Self Defense Forces participate in
exercise on Guam

wa-based Combat Logistics Battalion 31
y supplies for a humanitarian assistance
rt in Padang, Indonesia

FundinG aRRanGementS
The U.S. Government and GOJ estimated costs for facility and infrastructure development requirements
relating to the realignment to be approximately $10.27 billion (in Fiscal Year [FY] 2008 U.S. dollars).
The GOJ agreed to provide up to $6.09 billion of the $10.27 billion.1 The U.S. Government will fund
approximately $4.18 billion.1 Figure 3 identifies the funding arrangement between the U.S. Government and
the GOJ.
Figure 3. Funding Sources for Realignment (numbers below total $10.27 Billion)
Dollars in Billions

$3.29 $3.18 GOJ Direct Cash Contributions

GOJ Equity and Loans to Special
Purpose Entities
U.S. Funds (Facilities and
Infrastructure)
U.S. Funds (Road)

$1.00

$2.80
Sources: Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America
Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and their Dependents
from Okinawa to Guam, 2/17/2009 and JGPO, Guam Military Realignment Overview, 2/5/2008.

FedeRal FundinG FoR the GoveRnment oF Guam
The government of Guam receives Federal funding through programs such as the Federal Highways
Administration Territorial Highway Program, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -
Food Stamps. In addition, Guam receives grants for school improvement, energy efficiency, and conservation.
According to an Office of Management and Budget official, these funds would be spent regardless of the
military relocation from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. Based on an August 2009 budget data request from

5
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

the Office of Management and Budget, the government of Guam received Federal funding and grants of
approximately $596 million in FY 2008. The budget data also included estimated increases in FY 2009 and
FY 2010 to $611 million and $675.3 million, respectively.2 See Appendix B for an agency breakout of Federal
spending in Guam that is not directly related to the realignment for FY 2008 through FY 2010.

The government of Guam is also receiving additional funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
According to the official U.S. Government Web site for American Reinvestment and Recovery Act spending, as
of November 2009, the government of Guam received approximately $206 million in Federal stimulus funding
in the form of contracts, grants, and loans.3 The government of Guam used a portion of these funds to support
highway infrastructure projects, energy programs, and rehabilitation of the Guam International Airport runway.

USS Boxer (LHD 4) pulls pierside carrying U.S. Marines and Sailors from the
13th Marine Expeditionary Unit as they prepare to disembark for a cultural liberty call at
U.S. Naval Base Marianas, Guam

6
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

effortS of the interagency coordination
group of inSpectorS general for guam
realignment

Section 2835(e)(1)

7 FebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Efforts of the Interagency Coordination Group of
Inspectors Generals for Guam Realignment

Section 2835 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010 designates the Inspector General
(IG) of the DoD as the Chairman of the Interagency Coordination Group of Inspectors General for Guam
Realignment (ICG). The members of this group are the IG of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and
any other IGs as appropriate. The ICG provides objective supervision of audits and investigations, to
include inspections, evaluations, and reviews relating to the programs and operations funded with amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on Guam. Specifically, the ICG oversight
duties are to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment, handling, and
expenditure of amounts appropriated for military construction on Guam. This oversight consists of the
programs, operations, and contracts carried out using these funds, including:
• Oversight and accounting of the obligations and expenditures;
• Monitoring and review of construction activities;
• Monitoring and review of contracts;
• Monitoring and review of funds transferred among departments, agencies, and entities of the United
States and private and non-governmental entities;
• Maintenance of records to facilitate future audits and investigations; and
• Monitoring and review of the implementation of the DPRI relating to the realignment of military
installations and the relocation of military personnel to Guam.

The ICG Chairman began coordinating with the IG of the DOI and the IGs of various other Federal
departments and agencies to determine the required membership of the ICG. On November 20, 2009, the
ICG Chairman met with personnel from several IG offices to introduce the legislative requirements for the
ICG and request information on planned or completed oversight initiatives. The ICG Chairman will use
the information collected to determine the appropriate ICG membership. In addition, the ICG Chairman
continues to oversee the development of a strategy to conduct, supervise, and coordinate oversight activities
to monitor the use of funding for the Guam realignment.

In order to assist with the development of this strategy, the ICG Chairman established the Guam Interagency
Planning Group (IPG). This group will share information about the status of Guam construction and
discuss planned and ongoing oversight efforts. The IPG is made up of representatives from the audit and
investigative community, as well as representatives from DoD and other Federal departments and agencies.
The information exchanged will provide the basis for determining the initial and future initiatives needed to
effectively oversee activities related to the Guam realignment. The IPG will also make recommendations
to the ICG for its Annual Oversight Plan for the Guam realignment and determine future information and
assistance needs for fulfilling the ICG duties. The IPG held its first meeting on December 15, 2009.

The ICG Chairman is also participating as an observer of the Guam Oversight Council. The Guam Oversight
Council, chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, is a DoD council responsible for reviewing overall
strategy and addressing issues associated with the Guam realignment. Additionally, the ICG Chairman
Section 2835(e)(1)

has designated a representative to participate as an observer of the Guam Executive Council. The Under
Secretary of the Navy and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Asian and Pacific Security Affairs) are the
deputy co-chairs of the Guam Executive Council, which is responsible for formal coordination and control of
Guam policy and issue resolution.

FebRuaRy 1, 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 2010 88


annual oveRSiGht plan
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010 requires the members of the ICG to develop a
comprehensive plan for a series of audits and reviews respective to its oversight responsibilities for the U.S.
Marine Corps realignment to Guam. Currently, the ICG is compiling the Annual Oversight Plan.

ICG members will have varying degrees of involvement, but all members will play a role in the oversight
and success of the U.S. Marine Corps realignment to Guam. The group anticipates that significant challenges
will arise throughout the course of the military realignment. The ICG must consider the following challenges
to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is in place by 2014 to support the military and citizens of Guam. The
Annual Oversight Plan will focus on the following challenges and designated statutory reporting requirements.

Operational Readiness. It is important that the realignment does not adversely impact the operational
readiness of U.S. forces. The relocation of 8,000 U.S. Marine Corps personnel and their associated dependents
will create operational challenges with mobility support, training facilities, and adequate infrastructure. DoD
needs to ensure that there is adequate military sealift and airlift capability and that training ranges and facilities
meet the requirements of the U.S. military.

Quality of Life. The U.S. Government must ensure that the realignment does not adversely affect the quality
of life on Guam. The increase in military presence will have a significant impact on the government of Guam’s
infrastructure, including medical facilities, schools, housing, roads, and standard of living. Research, planning,
and coordination among Federal agencies and the government of Guam are essential to mitigating this
challenge.

Contract Management. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) designated contract management
as a high risk area for DoD and interagency contracting. NAVFAC is the contracting office responsible for
executing all construction contracts related to the Guam realignment. Annually, NAVFAC delivers more
than $11 billion of products and services.4 This amount could increase by approximately 15 percent with
the contract execution to support the military construction on Guam. DoD will need to ensure that it has an
adequate number of trained and experienced acquisition personnel to manage the increase in service, support,
and construction contracts awarded for the Guam realignment.

Contractor Oversight. In the past, DoD has struggled to maintain adequate visibility over its contractors.
DoD needs to ensure that it has an adequate number of qualified contractor oversight personnel for the Guam
military construction contracts.

Asset Accountability. DoD has experienced challenges with asset accountability. These challenges include the
monitoring and tracking of inventory and plant, property, and equipment procured and maintained by DoD.

Financial Management. Historically, DoD has identified and reported on several material control weaknesses Section 2835(e)(1)
that reflect some of the pervasive and long-standing financial management issues it faces. These weaknesses
include:
• Inadequate number of trained financial management personnel available to manage the influx of funds,
contract and vendor payments, and associated documents;
• Inaccurate cost accounting processes and systems that provide unreliable cost reports of obligations and
expenditures;
• Incomplete and inaccurate valuation of inventory accounts; and
• Inadequate accounting for Government-furnished and contractor-acquired material.

9
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


These weaknesses affect the safeguarding of assets and proper use of funds and impair the prevention and
identification of fraud, waste, and abuse. Due to an estimated influx of approximately $10.27 billion in funds
related to the Guam realignment, DoD can expect to experience financial management challenges related to
the weaknesses discussed above.1

completed auditS and teStimony
GAO and the Naval Audit Service (NAVAUDSVC) have completed 15 audit projects and provided
1 testimony related to the Guam realignment. The audit reports and testimony address deficiencies and
internal control weaknesses. See Appendix C for information related to each completed audit or testimony.

completed inveStiGationS
From January 1 to December 31, 2009, the DoD and other Federal law enforcement agencies, including the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; Air Force Office of Special
Investigations; the Federal Bureau of Investigations; and the Internal Revenue Service, did not identify any
investigations related to programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available for military construction on Guam.
Section 2835(e)(1)

B-52 and B-2 aircraft taxiing at Andersen Air Force Base

10
10
10
FebRuaRy 1, 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 2010

1
u.S. government obligation and expenditure
data

Section 2835(e)(1)a)

11
11 FebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 1: U.S. Government Obligation and
Expenditure Data (Section 2835(e)(1)(A))

Public Law 111-84 states that not later than February 1 of each fiscal year, the ICG Chairman must report
on the programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military
construction on Guam. Each report shall include a detailed statement of all obligations and expenditures
associated with such construction.

dod appRopRiation typeS
DoD plans to fund the majority of its costs for the Guam realignment with Military Construction and
Operation and Maintenance appropriations. Military Construction appropriations fund the planning and
design; installation or assembly of a new
facility; the addition, expansion, alteration,
or replacement of an existing facility;
the acquisition of an existing facility;
or the relocation of a facility. Military
construction also includes equipment
installed and made part of the facility
and related site preparation, demolition,
excavation, landscaping, or other land
improvements.

The Operation and Maintenance
appropriations fund expenses which
include DoD civilian salaries, supplies
and materials, furniture, maintenance of
equipment, maintenance of real property,
rental of equipment and facilities, food,
clothing, and fuel.
Existing Naval housing on Guam

u.S. FundinG FoR RealiGnment
The U.S. Government will be responsible for at least $4.18 billion to support the realignment of military
personnel from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. Of this amount, $3.18 billion supports facility and infrastructure
development and $1 billion supports construction of a road to link military facilities.1 Although the goal
is to relocate U.S. Marine Corps forces to Guam by 2014, funding for military construction will continue
beyond FY 2014. For FYs 2008 through 2010, the DoD was appropriated $11 million, $28 million, and
$324.7 million, respectively. Figure 4 identifies the increase in appropriated amounts for military construction
for these years.
Section 2835(e)(1)(A)

12
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


Figure 4. Military Construction Appropriations FY 2008-FY 2010
(Dollars in millions)

$324.7
$350

$300

$250

$200

$150

$100
$28.0
$11.0
$50

$0
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010

Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer) response provided on
1/14/2010 and JGPO response provided on 1/14/2010.

dod obliGationS and expendituReS
The majority of Military Construction and Operation and Maintenance appropriated funds are planned for
obligation and expenditure in future fiscal years. The DoD OIG requested the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller); Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Budget);
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller); and the Headquarters, U.S. Marine
Corps Programs and Resources office provide obligation and expenditure data supporting the U.S. Marine
Corps realignment to Guam. However, only the Department of the Navy (which includes the U.S. Marine
Corps) and the Department of the Army obligated and expended funds for this purpose in calendar year 2009.
A Department of the Navy official indicated that the obligation and expenditure data was derived from a
NAVFAC management information system and does not reflect data from an official accounting system. The
official also indicated that the data provided may not be complete since the Department of the Navy funding
could have been transferred to other organizations for execution. DoD obligated approximately $60.3 million
and expended approximately $35.7 million in calendar year 2009. For calendar year 2009, DoD primarily
obligated and expended Operation and Maintenance appropriations. However, the obligations and expenditures
of Military Construction appropriations will increase as construction contracts are awarded. Table 1 identifies

the amounts obligated and expended for each appropriation from January 1 to December 31, 2009.

13
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


Table 1. DoD Obligations and Expenditures Related to the Guam Realignment
(January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2009)

Appropriation* Obligations Expenditures
Military Construction, Navy and
$ 585,676 $ 520,724
Marine Corps
Military Construction, Army $ 0 $ 0
Operation and Maintenance, Navy $ 6,115,735 $ 6,078,926
Operation and Maintenance, Marine
$ 52,712,715 $ 28,957,909
Corps
Operation and Maintenance, Army $ 59,516 $ 59,516
Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance, Navy and Marine $ 848,050 $ 73,161
Corps
Total $ 60,321,692 $ 35,690,236

* The Department of the Air Force reported no obligations or expenditures supporting the Guam realignment for
calendar year 2009.

Sources: Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Budget), response to DoD OIG data call, 1/7/2010;
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), response to DoD OIG data call, 1/8/2010
and 1/11/2010; NAVFAC Headquarters, response to DoD OIG data call, 1/15/2010; and JGPO, response to DoD OIG
data call, 1/8/2010.

otheR GoveRnment aGencieS
From January 1 to December 31, 2009, the Department of Transportation identified obligations or
expenditures related to programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available for military construction on Guam. The Department of Transportation identified total obligations of
$7,753,348.5 Of this amount, it expended a total of $3,397,318.5

14
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

2
government of Japan revenue

Section 2835 (e)(1)(c)

15 FebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 2: Government of Japan Revenue
(Section 2835(e)(1)(C))

Section 2350k, title 10 of the United States Code grants the Secretary of Defense authority to accept cash
contributions from any nation in support of a relocation of the armed forces. According to agreements
between the U.S. Government and the GOJ, the GOJ is expected to provide up to $6.09 billion (FY 2008 U.S.
dollars) for the U.S. Marine Corps relocation from Okinawa, Japan to Guam.6 Public Law 111-84 requires the
ICG annual report to contain a detailed statement on the revenues contributed by the GOJ and any obligations
or expenditures of these revenues.

tRuSt Fund account
The “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009” established a trust fund account,
the “Support for U.S. Relocation to Guam Account.” The trust fund account has separate treasury accounts
reserved for cash contributions, earnings on investments, and expenditures associated with the U.S. Marine
Corps realignment to Guam. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial
Officer) (OUSD[C]) plans to transfer the funds received from the GOJ and issue an Obligation Authority
Letter to the Department of the Navy. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller) will then allocate the Japanese funds to NAVFAC using the assigned Trust Fund Receipt
Account with a subhead specifically assigned to the GOJ funds to facilitate tracking. The Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) monitors disbursements and collections and allocates interest earned by the
trust fund account. Figure 5 shows an overview of the cash flow process.

Figure 5. Government of Japan Cash Flow Process

DoD Component NAVFAC executes
GOJ provides OUSD(C) provides DFAS tracks and
provides the funds all GOJ funded
direct cash funds to the funds to the reports the GOJ
to NAVFAC for construction
OUSD(C) DoD Component financial data
execution contracts

Source: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller), Financial Management Functions Related to the Government of Japan Funding
Associated with the Movement of U.S. Forces to Guam, 12/29/2009.

The trust fund account can be used to fund work supporting the realignment of military installations and the
relocation of military personnel to Guam including:
• Administrative buildings;
• Instructional buildings; and
• Quality of life facilities and other supporting buildings.
Section 2835(e)(1)(c)

Japanese frigates -
Apra Harbor, Guam

U.S. Marine Corps
Marine Corps Air Station Fute

16
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 2: Government of Japan Revenue
(Section 2835(e)(1)(C))

GoveRnment oF Japan FundinG FoR RealiGnment
The GOJ has agreed to provide approximately $2.8 billion in direct cash contributions for facilities and
infrastructure development and approximately $3.29 billion in equity and loans to Special Purpose Entities
(public/private investments) to finance construction of housing and utilities.6 Each month, DoD must provide
a report to the GOJ showing the activity in the trust fund account holding the direct cash contributions
provided by GOJ. Table 2 shows the specific funding by category for GOJ funds.

Table 2. GOJ Funding Breakout
(in Billions)
Special Purpose
Direct Funds Entity Financing
Operating Facilities $ 1.29 $0
Utility Infrastructure $0 $ .74
Family Housing $0 $ 2.55
Barracks / Quality of Life $ 1.51 $0
Total $ 2.80 $ 3.29

Source: Secretary of the Navy, Report on DoD Planning Efforts for Guam, 9/15/2008 and JGPO,
SAME International Business Opportunity Workshop, 2/22/2007.

RevenueS (contRibutionS) / inteReSt / obliGationS / expendituReS
In July 2009, the GOJ provided $336 million for design and on-base infrastructure projects.7 For the GOJ
funds, DFAS identified the amount received, investments earned, obligations, and expenditures from January 1
to December 31, 2009 (Table 3).

Table 3. Funds Received from the GOJ
Revenue Earnings on
(Contribution) Investment Obligations Expenditures
Activity for the GOJ
$336,000,000 $369,315 $0 $0
Funds

Source: DFAS, response to DoD OIG data call, 1/7/2010.

Section 2835(e)(1)(c)
Japanese frigates -
Apra Harbor, Guam

s personnel -
enma, Okinawa, Japan

17
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Vintage Photograph of U.S. Navy Seabees constructing Apra Harbor Wall

18
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

3
proJect and program coStS

Section 2835(e)(1)(b)

19 FebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 3: Project and Program Costs
(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Public Law 111-84 requires the ICG annual report to contain a detailed statement on the costs incurred to date
and costs estimated to complete each DoD or DOI military construction project or program. The report must
identify all projects and programs associated with the realignment of military installations and the relocation of
military personnel to Guam.

RecoRdinG and appRoval oF dod pRoJectS
The DoD Financial Management Regulation requires a narrative justification and validation for each military
construction project. For U.S. Government projects, DoD justifies each proposed military construction project
with a DD Form 1391, “Military Construction Project Data.” DD Form 1391 provides information such as a
description of proposed construction, projected design completion date, and project cost. The Japanese funded
projects use a document similar to a DD Form 1391 for each military construction project.

Process for Projects Funded by U.S. Appropriations.
DoD has a standard process and controls in place for
planning, programming, budgeting, and executing military
construction funds. The DoD Component provides a
project justification, the DD Form 1391, to the OUSD(C)
and requests funding in DoD’s annual budget submission.
If approved, DoD includes the military construction project
within its budget justification. The budget justification is
part of the annual President’s budget to the congressional
committees. In addition, any funds spent on military
construction for the U.S. Marine Corps realignment to Construction of Kilo Wharf to accomodate
Guam will have other reporting requirements. Public Law the future supply class vessel
110-417, “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization (Apra Harbor, Guam)
Act for FY 2009,” requires the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress a report on military construction projects no later than February 15 of each year. This
report must contain information on each military construction project included in the budget submission for
the next fiscal year, as well as those included in the defense program related to the realignment of military
installations and the relocation of military personnel to Guam for future years.

Process for Projects Funded by Government of Japan. The Headquarters Marine Corps requested
assistance from NAVFAC Pacific to aid in the preparation of FY 2010 and FY 2011 DD Forms 1391, in which
funds will be requested from the GOJ. NAVFAC Pacific prepared a document similar to a DD Form 1391 for
each military construction project, and the Headquarters Marine Corps verified the scope requirements of each
project prior to submission to the GOJ for approval.
Section 2835(e)(1)(B)

20
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

dod pRoJect and pRoGRam liSt
NAVFAC Headquarters (which includes the U.S. Marine Corps data) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller) identified 102 projects that received funds and were
directly associated with the realignment of military installations and military personnel to Guam. These
projects incurred costs of approximately $17.5 million with an estimated completion cost of approximately
$36.1 million. A Department of the Navy official indicated that the expenditure data was derived from a
NAVFAC management information system and does not reflect data from an official accounting system. The
official also indicated that the data provided may not be complete since the Department of the Navy funding
could have been transferred to other organizations for execution. Table 4 identifies the DoD project and its
associated costs for calendar year 2009.

Table 4. 2009 Costs for DoD Projects and Programs
Cost
Total Incurred to Estimated
Budgeted Date Cost to
Project Description / Scope Start Date Cost (US Funds) Complete
Headquarters Marine To Be
Program Support $ 49,480 $0 $ 49,480
Corps Contractor Support Determined
Program Support $ 528,240 $0 $ 528,240
Program Support $ 55,000 $0 $ 55,000
S-10 Headquarters
Contract Support – Program Support * $ 31,100 $ 151,991 $ (120,891)
Environmental
S-10-Program Support To Be
Program Support $ 1,328,488 $0 $ 1,328,488
Contract Determined
Program Support $ 1,775,850 $0 $ 1,775,850
Contract Determined
S-10-Program Support
Program Support * $0 $ 81,840 $0
Contract
S-10 Program Support
Program Support * $0 $ 5,057,408 $0
Contract
Program Support $ 3,000,000 $0 $ 3,000,000
Contract Determined
N-13-Carrier Vessel Carrier Vessel Nuclear Spring
April 8, 2009 $ 414,283 $ 413,639 $ 644
Nuclear Spring Survey Survey

N-7-Carrier Vessel
Carrier Vessel Nuclear September 25,
Nuclear Turbidity $ 146,511 $ 13,088 $ 133,423
Turbidity Monitoring 2009
Monitoring
N-9-Habitat Equivalency Coral Habitat Equivalency September 25,
$ 12,589 $ 25,570 $ (12,981)
Analysis Analysis 2009
P-1-Master Plan Phase II Master Plan, Phase II * $ 676,212 $ 13,000 $ 663,212
On-base water, wastewater,
P-17, 18, 19-Water,
and electrical system layout Prior Year
Waste Water, and $0 $ 397,383 $0
and cost estimates to support Award
Electrical Plan, On-base
1391 submittals

21
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Cost
Traffic study for Marine Corps
main base which provides
P-20-On-base Traffic September 30,
technical level of details $ 275,262 $ 1,200 $ 274,062
Analysis 2009
on road width, alignments,
controls
P-28-DPRI Master CPM schedule for JGPO and Prior Year
$0 $ 8,800 $0
Integrated Schedule NAVFAC project activities Award
P-29-Commonwealth of
Master plan for Marine Corps
Northern Mariana Islands Prior Year
and DoD joint training on $0 $ 419,776 $0
(CNMI) Joint Military Award
Tinian and other CNMI study
Training Master
To Be
P-2X-Federal Highways Federal Highway Study $ 1,595,940 $0 $ 1,595,940
Determined
Master Plan for Tinian, Phase
P-30-Tinian Master Plan
II Guam Joint Military Master July 23, 2009 $ 651,456 $ 120,300 $ 531,156
Phase II
Plan (AM)
Prepare DD1391 for FY 2010
and Japanese FY 2009 for
P-4-Project September
Guam Joint Military Master $ 922,000 $ 945,126 $ (23,126)
Documentation 30,2009
Plan. Funding was accelerated
to FY 2008
P-50-Historical Ordinance Historical Ordinance
July 8, 2009 $ 108,447 $0 $ 108,447
Assessment Assessment
Detailed NEPA Alternatives
Development Plans for
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, & 8 for
P-55-Alternatives 1, 3,
U.S. Marine Corps Agreed June 24, 2009 $ 99,817 $ 82,346 $ 17,471
&8
Implementation Plans for
Guam Joint Military Master
Plan
September 10,
P-57-Traffic Study Off-Base Traffic Study $ 215,392 $0 $ 215,392
2009
Solid Waste Management plan
P-58-Construction and
for construction and demolition September 22,
Demolition Recycling $ 249,609 $0 $ 249,609
debris for Finegayan to include 2009
Study
green waste
Prior Year
P-58-Solid Waste Study Solid Waste Study $0 $ 3,500 $0
Award

Basic Facilities
Basic Facilities Requirements Prior Year
Requirements $0 $ 56,604 $0
Revalidation Award
Revalidation
Prior Year
Guam Naval Master Plan Guam Naval Master Plan $0 $ 156,481 $0
Award
Planning for Deployment of
Master Planning for Prior Year
Ballistic Missile Defense Task $0 $ 82,682 $0
Ballistic Missile Defense Award
Force
Prior Year
Revise Sprinkle System Revise Sprinkle System $0 $ 24 $0
Award
Prior Year
Waste Water Study Waste Water Study $0 $ 2,022 $0
Award

22
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Cost
Prior Year
Waste Water Study Waste Water Study $0 $ 12,022 $0
Award
Water System Plan (on Prior Year
Water System Plan (on base) $0 $ 3,727 $0
base) Award
Prior Year
Water Utility Study Water Utility Study $0 $ 13,921 $0
Award
Electrical Study-Power
E-11-Electrical Study July 29, 2009 $ 104,601 $ 6,768 $ 97,833
Generation
Natural Resources Biologist
E-16-Natural Resources September 25,
Support for Consultations $ 179,690 $ 35,000 $ 144,690
Study 2009
Records
Natural Resource Surveys-
E-16-Natural Resource September 23,
Utilities Corridor Study $ 107,736 $0 $ 107,736
Biologist 2009
(Harmon)
E-17-Cultural Resources Cultural/Historical Resource September 18,
$ 148,271 $0 $ 148,271
Study Study 2009
Additional Cultural Resources
E-17-Cultural Resources Surveys for Utilities Prior Year
$0 $ 477,191 $0
Study Alternatives and Harmon Main Award
Cantonment
E-17-Cultural/Historical Cultural/Historical Resource
* $ 125,312 $ 75,187 $ 50,125
Resource Study Study
Natural Resources Surveys
E-25-CNMI Natural in CNMI to Support Proposed To Be
$ 7,011,986 $0 $ 7,011,986
Resource Survey Training on, at a minimum, Determined
Tinian, Saipan, and Aguiguan
E-29-Social Impacts Prior Year
Social Impacts Assessment $0 $ 1,240,827 $0
Assessment Award
Legal Record of Actions and
E-31-Administrative September 24,
Decisions in the Preparation of $ 1,000,000 $ 29,852 $ 970,148
Record Review 2009
the EIS
Legal Record of Actions and
E-31-Administrative September 24,
Decisions in the Preparation of $ 76,629 $ 5,269 $ 71,360
Record Review 2009
the EIS
Sierra Wharf Dredged Material
E-33-Sierra Wharf September 25,
Characterization for Ocean $ 387,282 $0 $ 387,282
Dredge Material 2009

Disposal
Sierra Wharf Dredged Material
E-33-Sierra Wharf September 25,
Characterization for Ocean $ 330,715 $0 $ 330,715
Dredge Material 2009
Disposal
E-37-Cultural Resources Prior Year
Cultural Resources Study $0 $ 120,000 $0
Study Award
E-38- Conduct Natural Conduct Natural Resource Prior Year
$0 $ 216,984 $0
Resource Survey Survey Award
Modification for Additional
E-4-Draft EIS Action Alternatives and Actions June 22, 2009 $ 2,570,296 $ 974,123 $ 1,596,173
to Further Expedite EIS

23
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Cost
Modification to Expand the
E-40-Socioeconomic Socioeconomic Study in
May 14, 2009 $ 262,523 $ 30,000 $ 232,523
Study Support of the Joint Guam
Build-up EIS
E-41-Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Survey/ Prior Year
$0 $ 1,269,852 $0
Survey/Alternate Power Alternate Power Award
E-42/E-44-Natural Prior Year
Natural Resources Survey $0 $ 453,252 $0
Resources Survey Award
E-43-Waste Water Waste Water Treatment Plant Prior Year
$0 $ 96,021 $0
Treatment Plant Outfall Outfall Award
To Be
E-45-Biosecurity Biosecurity $ 205,901 $ 0 $ 205,901
Determined
To Be
E-45-Biosecurity Biosecurity $ 885,992 $ 0 $ 885,992
Determined
To Be
E-45-Biosecurity Biosecurity $ 1,350,486 $ 0 $ 1,350,486
Determined
Water Well Testing Study
E-46-Utility Study-New
to Support EIS U.S. Marine June 1, 2009 $ 1,354,611 $ 15,000 $ 1,339,611
Wells
Corps Relocation
Utility Study Modification to
E-46-Utility Study-New September 21,
add two additional wells and $ 78,913 $ 0 $ 78,913
Wells 2009
geotechnical research
E-47-Air Impact Study Air Impact Study June 23, 2009 $ 167,110 $ 62,432 $ 104,678
E-47-Utility Study, Air Utility Study * $ 18,568 $ 18,568 $0
Groundwater Assessment
E-48-Apra Landfill June 8, 2009 $ 80,172 $ 32,959 $ 47,213
Study, Apra Harbor Landfill
E-49-Sustainable Yield
Sustainable Yield April 15, 2009 $ 22,948 $ 22,000 $ 948
Study
March 16,
E-50-Recycling Study Recycling Study $ 224,827 $ 164,591 $ 60,236
2009
E-51-Arch&Bio Curation Biologist Support for September 23,
$ 11,635 $ 0 $ 11,635
(Dugong Biologist) Consultation Records 2009
$ 47,990 $ 28,794 $ 19,196

$ 5,495 $ 0 $ 5,495
E-51-Archaeological Biologist Support for September 23,
$ 134,323 $ 0 $ 134,323
Curation Consultation Records 2009
Biologist Support for September 23,
E-51-Dugong Translator $ 98,526 $ 0 $ 98,526
Consultation Records 2009
To Be
E-52-Haul Roads Haul Roads $ 505,281 $ 0 $ 505,281
Determined
To Be
E-52-Haul Roads Haul Roads $ 3,191,329 $ 0 $ 3,191,329
Determined
September 23,
E-53-Airspace Airspace Study $ 455,229 $ 12,734 $ 442,495
2009

24
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Cost
Natural Resources Bat, Snails, September 25,
E-54-Bats & Snails $ 77,781 $ 15,000 $ 62,781
and Marine Resources Study 2009
E-55-Northern District Evaluation of Northern District
September 15,
Wastewater Treatment Wastewater Treatment Plant $ 46,009 $0 $ 46,009
2009
Plant Capacity
E-56-Expand Main Expand Main Cantonment August 28,
$ 219,970 $0 $ 219,970
Cantonment Area Area 2009
E-57-Adaptive
Adaptive Management Study * $ 223,338 $ 223,338 $0
Management
E-60-Tinian Training Tinian Training Range September 11,
$ 100,237 $ 89,227 $ 11,010
Range Alternatives Alternatives 2009
E-61-LEED Sustainability September 30,
Sustainability Study $ 677,129 $ 14,100 $ 663,029
Program 2009
Drainage/Low Impact
E-63-Drainage Low September 28,
Development/Stormwater $ 499,429 $ 1,200 $ 498,229
Impact Development 2009
Management Plan
E-66-On Base Utility Relocation and Standby September 24,
$ 69,797 $0 $ 69,797
Concept Generator Plan 2009
E-68-Army Missile
Defense Additional Army Missile Defense September 24,
$ 59,516 $ 16,407 $ 43,109
Alternative in Support of Alternatives 2009
EIS
E-76-Wetlands Wetlands Delineation/ To Be
$ 165,601 $0 $ 165,601
Delineation Study Investigations Determined
E-77-Public Comment Public Comment Period Scope November 9,
$ 451,350 $0 $ 451,350
Assistance-Part 1 Increase 2009
E-80-Draft EIS Executive Summary To Be
$ 4,000 $0 $ 4,000
Translation Translation and Hardcopies Determined
E-9-Water Study (Lost
Water Study * $ 7,249 $ 6,000 $ 1,249
River)
E-xx-Air Study for Guam Air Study for Guam Power Prior Year
$0 $ 492,745 $0
Power Generation Generation Award
E-xx-Early Release/Draft Early Release Draft Impact August 28,
$ 393,191 $ 251,486 $ 141,705
EIS Statement 2009
E-xx-Natural Resources Prior Year
Spring Survey $ 0 $ 93,169 $0

Survey Award
Environmental Planning
September 25,
& Engineering Services Baseline Turbidity Monitoring $ 193,178 $ 192,528 $ 650
2009
for NEPA
Determine value of real
R-1-Appraisal Guam property interests for To Be
$ 196,400 $0 $ 196,400
(minus Harmon) acquisition and factors Determined
affecting value
Identify and document
R-3-Boundary Survey
land boundaries and any September 25,
(Federal Aviation Agency $ 652,514 $ 6,092 $ 646,422
encroachment or other related 2009
Parcel)
issues

25
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

Cost
Identify and document
R-3-Boundary Survey land boundaries and any September 30,
$ 210,199 $ 0 $ 210,199
(Route 15) encroachment or other related 2009
issues
Phase I Environmental Site
R-7-Environmental Assessment to support
July 23, 2009 $ 253,372 $ 119,094 $ 134,278
Baseline Study proposed Route 15 Ranges in
Guam
Provide relocation assistance
R-9-Relocation September 30,
planning and execution $ 116,448 $ 0 $ 116,448
Assistance 2009
services
Study will determine the
estimated point in time
at which existing utilities
(electrical, water, wastewater,
P-21-Utility Breakpoint and solid waste) will be Prior Year
$ 0 $ 2,788 $ 0
Study impacted with the increased Award
military build-up. Study
takes into consideration the
projected construction worker
build-up
P-46-SPE Development
Utility SPE development July 8, 2009 $ 1,911,605 $ 865,381 $ 1,046,224
(2 of 3)
Barrigada Utility Study-
Power, Potable Water,
P-54-Barrigada Utility
and Wastewater Utility May 12, 2009 $ 388,367 $ 356,800 $ 31,567
Study
Supplemental Study to
Support EIS for Marine Corps
P-59-Combustion Turbine
Combustion Turbine Study June 24, 2009 $ 528,523 $ 0 $ 528,523
Study
SPE Utilities Business
Basile, Bauman, Prestion
Case Analysis incorporating September 10,
Cole SPE Business $ 985,520 $ 865,879 $ 119,640
technical studies, statutes, and 2009
Model
determine final output
A study to identify the
September 22,
Utilities Alternatives preferred alternative solutions $ 68,283 $ 0 $ 68,283
2009
to providing utilities
Utilities Studies for Utilities Studies for Ballistic Prior Year
$ 0 $ 49,837 $ 0
Ballistic Missile Defense Missile Defense Award

P-44 Utility Solution Utility Solution * $ 97,315 $ 271,785 $ (174,470)
Family Housing SPE
H-1 Family Housing SPE * $ 848,050 $ 73,161 $ 774,889
Development
Draft EIS and Biological September 17,
Guam EIS $ 59,516 $ 59,516 $ 0
Assessment 2009
Total $ 42,783,940 $ 17,515,387 $ 36,077,408

* The Department of the Navy incurred costs for these projects; however, the start date was not provided.
Sources: NAVFAC Headquarters, response to DoD OIG data call, 1/15/2010 and Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller),
response to DoD OIG data call, 1/8/2010 and 1/11/2010.

26
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

(Section 2835(e)(1)(B))

otheR FedeRal aGency pRoJect and pRoGRam liSt
The Department of Transportation identified funds directly associated with the realignment of military
installations and military personnel to Guam. Specifically, the Department of Transportation Maritime
Administration and Federal Highway Administration identified four projects that received funds and were
directly associated with the realignment. These projects incurred costs of approximately $7.7 million with an
estimated completion cost of approximately $201.2 million. Table 5 identifies Department of Transportation
projects and associated costs for calendar year 2009.

Table 5. Costs for Department of Transportation Projects and Programs
Total Estimated
Budgeted Cost Incurred Cost to
Project Description / Scope Start Date Cost to Date Complete
Port of Guam Improvement December 4,
DTMA1R09007 $ 200,000,000 $ 0 $ 200,000,000
Enterprise Program 2008
Government of Prepare NEPA document
Guam Contract and coordination among
GU-NH-IPMS(002) government of Guam November 1,
$ 5,372,550 $ 5,372,550 $0
Islandwide Program Department of Public 2008
Management Works, Federal Highway
Services Administration, and DoD
Prepare Design Build
Government of
Request for Qualifications/
Guam Contract
Request for proposals for
GU-NH-IPMS (002) September
FY 2010 Defense access $ 3,430,000 $ 2,283,920 $ 1,146,080
Islandwide Program 2009
road approved projects
Management
and develop Design Build
Services
concept for future projects
Funding for
Administrative cost
Federal Highway
to Federal Highway
Administration August 2009 $ 70,000 $ 20,000 $ 50,000
Administration for travel
Administrative
and personnel cost
Expenses

Total $ 208,872,550 $ 7,676,470 $ 201,196,080

Source: Department of Transportation, response to DoD OIG data call, 12/28/2009.


27
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Near several parked US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers, a B-1B Lancer Bomber, deployed
from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, takes off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, in support of
the 7th Air Expeditionary Wing’s mission

28
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

4
operating expenSeS

Section 2835(e)(1)(d)

29 FebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 4: Operating Expenses
(Section 2835(e)(1)(D))

Public Law 111-84 requires the ICG annual report to contain a detailed statement on the operating expenses of
agencies or entities receiving amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on
Guam. The DoD Financial Management Regulation states that operating expenses include costs for personnel,
travel, communications, contractual services, and other program expenses.

depaRtment oF the navy opeRatinG expenSeS
NAVFAC is the contracting office and agent responsible for executing acquisition for the U.S. Marine Corps
realignment to Guam. The dollars needed to support this acquisition effort are either mission funded or
reimbursed by the customer. NAVFAC charges a Supervision, Inspection, and Overhead rate of 6.2 percent to
each customer for construction management services on projects outside the continental United States. The
Supervision, Inspection, and Overhead rate is applied to the cost of a construction contract to recover direct
and indirect expenses for a project’s construction management services, including such items as contract/
project administration, cost estimation, and cost management. This rate is calculated against each individual
contract. However, the Department of the Navy indicated that it did not execute any U.S. Government or GOJ
funded construction contracts in calendar year 2009 and did not apply any overhead rates.

The Department of the Navy (which includes the U.S. Marine Corps) identified operating expenses of
$19.8 million during calendar year 2009, including salaries, travel, and other program expenses. Table 6 lists
the operating expenses for support organizations associated with the military realignment on Guam.

Table 6. Department of the Navy Operating Expenses Related to the Guam Realignment
(January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2009)

Description of Expenses Operating
Organization Incurred Expenses
JGPO Salaries $ 1,879,254
JGPO Travel $ 486,125
JGPO Permanent Change of Station $ 31,170
JGPO Supplies $ 44,772
JGPO In-House JGPO Contract Support $ 2,488,155
NAVFAC Headquarters Salaries/Travel $ 507,740*
NAVFAC Pacific Salaries/Travel $ 7,210,568*
NAVFAC Marianas Salaries/Travel $ 619,000*
Marine Forces Pacific/U.S. Salaries/Travel
$ 6,366,462*
Marine Corps
Section 2835(e)(1)(D)

Public-Private Venture Salaries/Travel $ 150,148*
Total $ 19,783,394

* A Department of the Navy official indicated that the expense data was derived from
a NAVFAC management information system and does not reflect data from an official
accounting system.
Sources: NAVFAC Headquarters, response to DoD OIG data call, 1/12/2010 and JGPO, response to DoD
OIG data call, 1/7/2010.

30
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 4: Operating Expenses
(Section 2835(e)(1)(D))

opeRatinG expenSeS FoR otheR FedeRal aGency
The Environmental Protection Agency identified operating expenses associated with the realignment of
military installations and military personnel to Guam. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency
identified salary costs of $644,460 and travel costs of $22,150.

Section 2835(e)(1)(D)

31
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) navigates through Apra Harbor, Guam, on a deployment to areas of
Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands to join with health and civic organizations to provide
humanitarian assistance and conduct community improvement projects

32
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

5
contractS, grantS, agreementS, or other
funding mechaniSmS data

Section 2835(e)(1)(e)

33
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Section 5: Contracts, Grants, Agreements, or Other Funding
Mechanisms Data (Section 2835(e)(1)(E))

Public Law 111-84 requires the ICG annual report to contain a detailed statement on the awarded contracts,
grants, agreements, or other funding mechanisms that use amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
for military construction on Guam.

contRactinG oFFice
NAVFAC is the contracting office responsible for executing all construction contracts related to the Guam
realignment. NAVFAC provides facilities lifecycle support and facilities engineering and acquisition for the
Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and DoD agencies. It is one of two DoD Construction Agents
consisting of 13,500 military, civilian, and contractor personnel, and annually delivers more than $11 billion
of products and services.4
NAVFAC Pacific, located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, has Navy contracting authority and specialized expertise
in design and construction acquisition, facilities support contracts, and environmental restoration and
planning. NAVFAC Pacific includes three commands: NAVFAC Hawaii, NAVFAC Marianas in Guam,
and NAVFAC Far East in Japan. NAVFAC Marianas is responsible for Navy facilities and environmental
program management, execution, and contracting on Guam. Responsibilities include construction, utilities,
engineering, facilities management, base development and planning, and facilities maintenance and repair.
NAVFAC began awarding architect and engineering contracts for the preparation of the construction on Guam
in FY 2009 and plans to begin awarding construction contracts in FY 2010.

contRactinG pRoceSS
The “Implementation Guidance for the DoD and the Ministry of Defense of Japan on Projects Funded by
Japanese Cash Contributions” states that Japanese cash contributions provided to the U.S. Treasury account
are considered appropriated funds. Any contract associated with the use of such funds is subject to the Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
Both Congress and the Federal Acquisition Regulations promote maximum participation by competition
among business enterprises for the award of Government contracts. In the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2009, Congress urged the Secretary of Defense to ensure maximum participation by business
enterprises of the United States and its territories for the construction projects on Guam. The Federal
Acquisition Regulations require that contracts be publicized to increase competition.
Several unique risks exist for the completion of the Guam construction projects. Because construction
will exceed local capacity and the availability of the labor force, it is essential that NAVFAC solicit all
potential entities able to perform the work. The construction capacity on Guam has averaged approximately
$550 million8 per year and requirements to complete the U.S. Marine Corps realignment to Guam on time call
for the execution of $3 billion9 in construction capacity a year. Due to the estimated increase in construction
capacity, it is anticipated that the labor force on Guam will expand from approximately 2,800 in FY 2010 to

approximately 17,000 in 2014.10

liSt oF contRactS / GRantS / aGReementS / otheR FundinG mechaniSmS
NAVFAC Headquarters identified 14 contracts, the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment identified 6 grants,
and the Environmental Protection Agency identified 1 contract that were used to support the military
realignment to Guam. For these contracts and grants, NAVFAC, DoD Office of Economic Adjustment, and
the Environmental Protection Agency obligated approximately $53.1 million. A NAVFAC official indicated
that its obligation data was derived from a NAVFAC management information system and does not reflect
data from an official accounting system. Table 7 identifies the DoD and Environmental Protection Agency
contracts, grants, agreements, or other funding mechanisms. If a task order, delivery order, or modification
increased the value of the contract, those costs were included in the following reported amounts.

34
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Contract, Grant, Amount
Agreement, Obligated to Method Used Other than
or Funding Ceiling Date to Solicit Offers Offers Full and Open
Agency Mechanism Title Amount (U.S. Funds) Scope / Description Offers Solicited Received Competition
Department $ 193,178 Environmental planning and
N6247005D6201 * * * * *
of the Navy Engineering Services for the NEPA

Administrative Records Review
Department
N6247009D0003 * $ 1,531,849 and Federal Aviation Administration * * * *
of the Navy
Airspace Study
Department Contract
N6274205C3501 * $ 210,199 Title Boundary Survey, Route 15 - - -
of the Navy Modification
Indefinite-Delivery/ Federal
Department N6274206D1869 Small Business
$ 5,000,000 $ 108,447 Indefinite-Quantity Environmental Business - 6
of the Navy Set-Aside
Studies and Permits Opportunities

Federal
Department N6274206D1870
$ 65,000,000 $ 12,075,882 Strategic Base Planning Business - 4 N/A
of the Navy Opportunities
Federal
Department Indefinite-Delivery/ Small Business
N6274206D1881 $ 5,000,000 $ 249,807 Business - *
of the Navy Indefinite-Quantity Water Studies Set-Aside
Opportunities

35
Department Dunhill
N6274207D1119 * $ 185,570 Dunhill Contract - - Task Order
of the Navy Contract
Realignment

Federal
Department N6274208D0009 Program Management Support and
$100,000,000 $ 19,440,128 Business - 6 N/A
of the Navy Design Services Opportunities

Department Federal
Design Support for Various
N6274209D0002 $100,000,000 $ 7,147,697 Business - 4 N/A
of the Navy Waterfront/Marine Related Projects Opportunities
Department Section 8(a)
N6274209D1957 $ 3,500,000 $ 807,077 Environmental Technical Services - 1 N/A
of the Navy
Department Section 8(a)
N6274209D1960 $ 3,500,000 $ 134,323 Archeological Services - 1 N/A
of the Navy

Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Navy
Department Electronic
N6247008D2006 $ 40,000,000 $ 1,062,217 Quantity Housing and Utilities - 6 N/A
of the Navy Commerce
Studies Online

Utilities Consultation and Technical Navy
Department Electronic
N6258308C0034 $ 350,572 $ 350,572 Assistance Support of U.S. Marine - 3 N/A
of the Navy Commerce

FebRuaRy 1, 2010
Corps Relocation to Guam Online
Table 7. Contracts, Grants, Agreements, or Other Funding Mechanisms Supporting the Guam Military



Contract, Grant, Amount
Agreement, Obligated to Method Used Other than
or Funding Ceiling Date to Solicit Offers Offers Full and Open
Agency Mechanism Title Amount (U.S. Funds) Scope / Description Offers Solicited Received Competition

Contractor Assistance and Advisory
Department

FebRuaRy 1, 2010
N6247009D4005 $ 3,500,000 $ 175,177 Services in Support of NAVFAC - 1 1 Section8(a)
of the Navy
P&S

Capacity building within the Office
of the Governor (Environmental

DoD Office
Advisory Services, Planning
of Economic GR0706-08-03 $ 2,531,610 $ 2,531,610 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Advisory Services); Financial-Fiscal
Adjustment
Advisory Services; Integrated
Waste Management Study

DoD Office
Port modernization fact finding and

of Economic GR0706-09-04 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
planning
Adjustment

DoD Office Fiscal analysis of direct and indirect
of Economic GR0706-09-05 $ 996,873 $ 996,873 impacts associated with proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A
Adjustment DoD buildup on Guam

36
DoD Office

of Economic GR0706-09-06 $ 536,955 $ 536,955 Organizational/ Logistical support N/A N/A N/A N/A
Adjustment

DoD Office Capacity enhancing; Health and
of Economic GR0706-09-07 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Human Services Care strategic N/A N/A N/A N/A
Adjustment planning

DoD Office
Port Terminal Preliminary Design;
of Economic GR0706-09-08 $ 975,000 $ 975,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Port Master Planning
Adjustment

Indefinite-
Environmen- Impacts on water and wastewater
EP-R9-08-1 TO#16 Delivery /
tal Protection $ 685,018 $ 354,415 resources from the military 1 1 N/A
(R9080100016) Indefinite-
Agency expansion in the territory of Guam
Quantity

Total $335,576,028 $ 53,066,976

* Information not provided.
Sources: NAVFAC Headquarters, response to DoD OIG data call, 1/12/2010 and 1/14/2010; Office of Economic Adjustment, response to DoD OIG data call, 1/7/2010; and Environmental Protection Agency,
response to DoD OIG data call, 1/21/2010.

Appendices and Endnotes

37 FebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

APPENDICES AND ENDNOTES

U.S. Air Force Personnel with the 144th
Air National Guard Civil Engineer Squadron
constructing one of three 5,000 square foot K-Span
facilities to house equipment at Northwest Field,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(May 2009)

38
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix A. Legislative Mandates for Guam Realignment in
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010

Appendix A. Legislative Mandates for
Guam Realignment in the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010
SEC. 2831. ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN MANAGEMENT
AND COORDINATION OF DEFENSE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO GUAM
REALIGNMENT.
(a) DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Section 132 of title 10, U.S. Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
‘‘(d) Until September 30, 2015, the Deputy Secretary of Defense shall lead the Guam Executive Council
and shall be the Department of Defense’s principal representative for coordinating the interagency efforts in
matters relating to Guam, including the following executive orders:
‘‘(1) Executive Order No. 13299 of May 12, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 25477; 48 U.S.C. note prec. 1451;
relating to the Interagency Group on Insular Affairs).
‘‘(2) Executive Order No. 12788 of January 15, 1992, as amended (57 Fed. Reg. 2213; relating to the
Defense Economic Adjustment Program).’’

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report including the charter that establishes the Guam
Executive Council.

SEC. 2832. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING USE OF SPECIAL PURPOSE
ENTITIES TO ASSIST WITH GUAM REALIGNMENT.
(a) SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘special purpose entity’’ means
any private person, corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or local government, or authority or
instrumentality of a State or local government that the Secretary of Defense determines is capable of producing
military family housing or providing utilities to support the realignment of military installations and the
relocation of military personnel on Guam.

(b) REPORT ON INTENDED USE SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITIES.—
(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing the
intended use of special purpose entities to provide military family housing or utilities to support the
realignment of military installations and the relocation of military personnel on Guam.
(2) NOTICE AND WAIT.—The Secretary of Defense may not authorize the use of special use entities
as described in paragraph (1) until the end of the 30-day period (15-day period if the report is submitted
electronically) beginning on the date on which the report required by such paragraph is submitted.

(c) APPLICABILITY OF UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA.—
(1) APPLICABILITY TO SECTION 2350K CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 2824(c)(4) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110–417; 10 U.S.C. 2687
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(D) APPLICABILITY OF UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA.—
The unified facilities criteria promulgated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics and dated May 29, 2002, and any successor to such criteria shall be the
minimum standard applicable to projects funded using contributions referred to in subsection (b)

39
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


(1) for a transaction authorized by paragraph (1).’’.
(2) APPLICABILITY TO SPECIAL PURPOSE ENTITY CONTRIBUTIONS.—
The unified facilities criteria promulgated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics and dated May 29, 2002, and any successor to such criteria shall be
the minimum standard applicable to projects funded using contributions provided by a special
purpose entity.
(3) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing an evaluation of
various options, including a preferred option, that the Secretary could utilize to comply with the
unified facilities criteria referred to in paragraph (2) in the acquisition of military housing on Guam in
connection with the realignment of military installations and the relocation of military personnel on
Guam. In preparing the report, the Secretary shall consider the impact of—
(A) increasing the overseas housing allowance for members of the Armed Forces serving on
Guam; and
(B) providing a direct Federal subsidy to public-private ventures.

(d) SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SCOPE OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.—Section
2821 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110–417;
122 Stat. 4729) is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b); and
(2) in such subsection, by striking ‘‘should incorporate the civilian and military infrastructure into a
single grid to realize and maximize the effectiveness of the overall utility system’’ and inserting ‘‘should
support proposed utility infrastructure improvements on Guam that incorporate the civilian and military
infrastructure into a single grid to realize and maximize the effectiveness of the overall utility system,
rather than simply supporting one or more military installations’’.

SEC. 2833. WORKFORCE ISSUES RELATED TO MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AND CERTAIN OTHER TRANSACTIONS ON GUAM.
(a) PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS.—Subsection (c) of section 2824 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110–417; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(5) APPLICATION OF PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, U.S. Code,
shall apply to any military construction project or other transaction authorized by paragraph (1)
that is carried out on Guam using contributions referred to in subsection (b)(1) or appropriated
funds.
‘‘(B) SECRETARY OF LABOR AUTHORITIES.—In order to carry out the requirements of
subparagraph (A) and paragraph (6) (relating to composition of workforce for construction
projects), the Secretary of Labor shall have the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization
Plan Number 14 of 1950 and section 3145 of title 40, U.S. Code.
‘‘(C) WAGE RATE DETERMINATION.—In making wage rate determinations pursuant to sub-
paragraph (A), the Secretary of Labor shall not include in the wage survey any persons who hold
a visa described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)).
‘‘(D) ADDITION TO WEEKLY STATEMENT ON THE WAGES PAID.—In the case of
projects and other transactions covered by subparagraph (A), the weekly statement required by
section 3145 of title 40, U.S. Code, shall also identify each employee working on the project or
transaction who holds a visa described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)).

40
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


‘‘(E) DURATION OF REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary of Labor shall make and issue a wage
rate determination for Guam annually until 90 percent of the funds in the Account and other
funds made available for the realignment of military installations and the relocation of military
personnel on Guam have been expended.’’.

(b) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE.—
Subsection (e) of such section is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘Not later than’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(1) MILITARY CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION.—Not later than’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(2) CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE INFORMATION.—The annual report shall also include
an assessment of the living standards of the construction workforce employed to carry out military
construction projects covered by the report, including, at a minimum, the adequacy of contract standards
and infrastructure that support temporary housing the construction workforce and their medical needs.’’.

SEC. 2834. COMPOSITION OF WORKFORCE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
FUNDED THROUGH THE SUPPORT FOR U.S. RELOCATION TO GUAM
ACCOUNT.
(a) COMPOSITION OF WORKFORCE.—Section 2824(c) of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (division B of Public Law 110–417; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (5), as added by section 2833, the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) COMPOSITION OF WORKFORCE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—
‘‘(A) LIMITATION.—With respect to each construction project that is carried out using amounts
described in subparagraph (B), no work may be performed by a person holding a visa described in
section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)
(b)) unless—
‘‘(i) the application for that visa has been approved pursuant to the issuance of a temporary
labor certification by the Governor of Guam as provided under section 214.2 of title 8, Code
of Federal Regulations; and
‘‘(ii) the Governor of Guam, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, makes the
certification described in subparagraph (C) to the Secretary of Defense.
‘‘(B) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Subparagraph (A) applies to—

‘‘(i) amounts in the Account used for projects associated with the realignment of military
installations and the relocation of military personnel on Guam;
‘‘(ii) funds associated with activities under section 2821 of this Act; and
‘‘(iii) funds for authorized military construction projects.
‘‘(C) CERTIFICATION.—The certification referred to in subparagraph (A) is a certification, in
addition to the certifications required by section 214.2 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations,
that—
‘‘(i) there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available
at the time of application for a visa and admission to the U.S. and at the place where the
persons holding visas described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) are to perform such skilled or unskilled
labor; and
‘‘(ii) the employment of such persons holding visas described in section 101(a)(15)(H)
(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) will not
adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in Guam similarly employed.
‘‘(D) SOLICITATION OF WORKERS.—In order to ensure compliance with subparagraph (A),

41
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


as a condition of a contract covered by such subparagraph, the contractor shall be required to
advertise and solicit for construction workers in the U.S., including Guam, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, in accordance with a recruitment plan approved by the Secretary of Labor. The
contractor shall submit a copy of the employment offer, including a description of wages and
other terms and conditions of employment, to the Secretary of Labor at least 60 days before the
start date of the workers under a contract. The contractor shall authorize the Secretary of Labor
to post a notice of the employment offer on a website, with State, territorial, and local job banks,
with State and territorial workforce agencies, and with any other referral and recruitment sources
the Secretary of Labor determines may be pertinent to the employment opportunity.
‘‘(E) RECRUITMENT PERIOD.—The Secretary of Labor shall ensure that a contractor’s
recruitment of construction workers complies with the recruitment plan required by subparagraph
(D) for a period beginning 60 days before the start date of workers under a contract and
continuing for the next 28 days. During the recruitment period, the contractor shall interview
all qualified and available U.S. construction workers who have applied for the employment
opportunity, and, at the close of the recruitment period, the contractor shall provide the Secretary
of Labor with a recruitment report providing any reasons for which the contractor did not hire an
applicant who is a qualified U.S. construction worker. Not later than 21 days before the start date
of the workers under a contract, the Secretary of Labor shall certify to the Governor of Guam
whether the contractor has satisfied the recruitment plan created under subparagraph (D).
‘‘(F) LIMITATION.—An employer, its attorney or agent, the Secretary of Labor, the Governor of
Guam, and any designee thereof, may not seek or receive payment of any kind from any worker
for any activity related to obtaining an H–2B labor certification with respect to any construction
project that is carried out using amounts described in subparagraph (B).’’.

(b) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Not later than June 30, 2010, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional committees specified in paragraph (3) a report containing an assessment
of efforts to establish a Project Labor Agreement for construction projects associated with the Guam
realignment as encouraged by Executive Order 13502, entitled ‘‘Use of Project Labor Agreements for
Federal Construction Projects’’ (74 Fed. Reg. 6985), as a means of complying with the requirements of
paragraph (6) of section 2824(c) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, as

added by subsection (a).
(2) SECRETARY OF LABOR.—Not later than June 30, 2010, the Secretary of Labor shall submit to
the congressional committees specified in paragraph (3) a report containing an assessment of—
(A) the opportunities to expand the recruitment of construction workers in the U.S., including
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to support the realignment of military installations and
the relocation of military personnel on Guam, consistent with the requirements of paragraph (6)
of section 2824(c) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, as added
by subsection (a);
(B) the ability of labor markets to support the Guam realignment;
(C) the sufficiency of efforts to recruit U.S. construction workers; and
(D) the costs to the U.S. for recruitment plans required by such paragraph (6) and a proposed
method to cover such costs.
(3) COVERED CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The reports required by this subsection shall
be submitted to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Education and Labor of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

42
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


SEC. 2835. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION GROUP OF INSPECTORS GENERAL
FOR GUAM REALIGNMENT.
(a) INTERAGENCY COORDINATION GROUP.—There is hereby established the Interagency Coordination
Group of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Interagency
Coordination Group’’)—
(1) to provide for the objective conduct and supervision of audits and investigations relating to the
programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military
construction on Guam in connection with the realignment of military installations and the relocation of
military personnel on Guam; and
(2) to provide for coordination of, and recommendations on, policies designed—
(A) to promote economic efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the programs and
operations described in paragraph (1); and
(B) to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse in such programs and operations.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—
(1) CHAIRPERSON.—The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall serve as chairperson of
the Interagency Coordination Group.
(2) ADDITIONAL MEMBERS.—Additional members of the Interagency Coordination Group shall
include the Inspector General of the Department of Interior and the Inspector General of such other
Federal agencies as the chairperson considers appropriate to carry out the duties of the Interagency
Coordination Group.

(c) DUTIES.—
(1) OVERSIGHT OF GUAM CONSTRUCTION.—It shall be the duty of the Interagency Coordination
Group to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment, handling, and
expenditure of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on Guam and
of the programs, operations, and contracts carried out utilizing such funds, including—
(A) the oversight and accounting of the obligation and expenditure of such funds;
(B) the monitoring and review of construction activities funded by such funds;
(C) the monitoring and review of contracts funded by such funds;
(D) the monitoring and review of the transfer of such funds and associated information between
and among departments, agencies, and entities of the U.S. and private and nongovernmental

entities;
(E) the maintenance of records on the use of such funds to facilitate future audits and investigations
of the use of such fund; and
(F) the monitoring and review of the implementation of the Defense Posture Review Initiative
relating to the realignment of military installations and the relocation of military personnel on
Guam.
(2) OTHER DUTIES RELATED TO OVERSIGHT.—The Interagency Coordination Group shall estab-
lish, maintain, and oversee such systems, procedures, and controls as the Interagency Coordination Group
considers appropriate to discharge the duties under paragraph (1).
(3) OVERSIGHT PLAN.—The chairperson of the Interagency Coordination Group shall prepare an an-
nual oversight plan detailing planned audits and reviews related to the Guam realignment.

(d) ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—
(1) PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.—Upon request of the Interagency Coordination Group for
information or assistance from any department, agency, or other entity of the Federal Government, the
head of such entity shall, insofar as is practicable and not in contravention of any existing law, furnish

43
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


such information or assistance to the Interagency Coordination Group.
(2) REPORTING OF REFUSED ASSISTANCE.—Whenever information or assistance requested
by the Interagency Coordination Group is, in the judgment of the chairperson of the Interagency
Coordination Group, unreasonably refused or not provided, the chairperson shall report the
circumstances to the Secretary of Defense and to the congressional defense committees without delay.
(e) REPORTS.—
(1) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than February 1 of each year, the chairperson of the Interagency
Coordination Group shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Secretary of the Interior a report summarizing, for the preceding calendar year, the activities of
the Interagency Coordination Group during such year and the activities under programs and operations
funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on Guam.
Each report shall include, for the year covered by the report, a detailed statement of all obligations,
expenditures, and revenues associated with such construction, including the following:
(A) Obligations and expenditures of appropriated funds.
(B) A project-by-project and program-by-program accounting of the costs incurred to date
for military construction in connection with the realignment of military installations and the
relocation of military personnel on Guam, together with the estimate of the Department of
Defense and the Department of the Interior, as applicable, of the costs to complete each project
and each program.
(C) Revenues attributable to or consisting of funds contributed by the Government of Japan in
connection with the realignment of military installations and the relocation of military personnel
on Guam and any obligations or expenditures of such revenues.
(D) Operating expenses of agencies or entities receiving amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available for military construction on Guam.
(E) In the case of any contract, grant, agreement, or other funding mechanism described in
paragraph (2)—
(i) the amount of the contract, grant, agreement, or other funding mechanism;
(ii) a brief discussion of the scope of the contract, grant, agreement, or other funding
mechanism;
(iii) a discussion of how the department or agency of the U.S. Government involved in
the contract, grant, agreement, or other funding mechanism identified, and solicited offers
from, potential individuals or entities to perform the contract, grant, agreement, or other

funding mechanism, together with a list of the potential individuals or entities that were
issued solicitations for the offers; and
(iv) the justification and approval documents on which was based the determination to use
procedures other than procedures that provide for full and open competition.
(2) COVERED CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AGREEMENTS, AND FUNDING MECHANISMS.—A
contract, grant, agreement, or other funding mechanism described in this paragraph is any major
contract,
grant, agreement, or other funding mechanism that—
(A) is entered into by any department or agency of the U.S. Government with any public or
private sector entity; and
(B) involves the use of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for military
construction on Guam.
(3) FORM.—Each report required under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, but
may include a classified annex if the Interagency Coordination Group considers it necessary.
(4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the
public disclosure of information that is—

44
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


(A) specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other provision of law;
(B) specifically required by Executive order to be protected from disclosure in the interest of na-
tional defense or national security or in the conduct of foreign affairs; or
(C) a part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
(5) SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS.—Not later than 30 days after receipt of a report under paragraph
(1), the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Interior may submit to the congressional defense
committees any comments on the matters covered by the report as the Secretary concerned considers
appropriate. Any comments on the matters covered by the report shall be submitted in unclassified form,
but may include a classified annex if the Secretary concerned considers it necessary.
(f) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY; WAIVER.—
(1) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The Interagency Coordination Group shall publish on a publically-
available Internet website each report prepared under subsection (e). Any comments on the report
submitted under paragraph (5) of such subsection shall also be published on such website.(2) WAIVER
AUTHORITY.—The President may waive the requirement under paragraph (1) with respect to
availability to the public of any element in a report under subsection (e), or any comment with respect to
a report, if the President determines that the waiver is justified for national security reasons.
(3) NOTICE OF WAIVER.—The President shall publish a notice of each waiver made under this
subsection in the Federal Register no later than the date on which a report required under subsection
(e), or any comment under paragraph (5) of such subsection, is submitted to the congressional defense
committees. The report and comments shall specify whether waivers under this subsection were made
and with respect to which elements in the report or which comments, as appropriate.
(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE.— The term ‘‘amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for military construction on Guam’’ includes amounts derived
from the Support for U.S. Relocation to Guam Account.
(2) GUAM.—The term ‘‘Guam’’ includes any island in the Northern Mariana Islands.
(h) TERMINATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Interagency Coordination Group shall terminate upon the expenditure of 90
percent of all funds appropriated or otherwise made available for Guam realignment.
(2) FINAL REPORT.—Before the termination of the Interagency Coordination Group pursuant to
paragraph (1), the chairperson of the Interagency Coordination Group shall prepare and submit to the

congressional defense committees a final report containing—
(A) notice that the termination condition in paragraph (1) has occurred; and
(B) a final forensic audit on programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available for military construction on Guam.

SEC. 2836. COMPLIANCE WITH NAVAL AVIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
AS CONDITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT FACILITY FOR MARINE
CORPS AIR STATION, FUTENMA, OKINAWA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may not accept, or authorize any other official of the
Department of Defense to accept, a replacement facility in Okinawa for air operations conducted at Marine
Corps Air Station, Futenma, Okinawa until the Secretary reports to the congressional defense committees
that the replacement facility and its planned operating procedures are consistent with naval aviation safety
requirements.
(b) EXERCISE OF WAIVER AUTHORITIES.—
(1) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the
Secretary from exercising existing waiver authorities provided the Secretary first determines the waiver

45
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


is necessary in the interest of national defense.
(2) REQUIRED REPORTING OF EFFORTS.—The report specified under subsection (a) shall clearly
identify efforts made to mitigate deviations from criteria in the planning and construction of the
replacement facility described in such subsection.

SEC. 2837. REPORT AND SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MARINE CORPS
REQUIREMENTS IN ASIA-PACIFIC REGION.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the training and readiness
requirements necessary for Marine Forces Pacific, the field command of the Marine Corps within the U.S.
Pacific Command.

(b) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report required under subsection (a) shall contain each of the following:
(1) A description of the units of the Marine Corps expected to be assigned or realigned on a permanent
or temporary basis to Marine Forces Pacific, including the type of unit, the organizational element, the
current location of the unit, and proposed location for the unit.
(2) A description of the training requirements necessary to sustain the current and planned realignment of
forces specified in paragraph (1).
(3) A description of the strategic- and tactical-lift requirements associated with the training, operational
readiness, and movement of Marine Forces Pacific, including programming information regarding the
intent of the Department of Defense to eliminate deficiencies in the strategic-lift capabilities.

(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that an evaluation of training and readiness
requirements for Marine Forces Pacific—
(1) should be conducted and completed as soon as possible;
(2) should include an analysis that, at a minimum, reviews the capabilities required to support the
training, operational readiness, and movement of Marine Air-Ground Task Force; and
(3) should not impact the implementation of the recently signed international agreement entitled
‘‘Agreement between the Government of the U.S. of America and the Government of Japan concerning
the Implementation of the Relocation of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and their Depen-
dents from Okinawa to Guam’’.

46
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix B. Federal Spending in Guam Not Directly
Related to the Realignment

Appendix B. Federal Spending in
Guam Not Directly Related to the
Realignment*
Agency, Subagency, or Bureau Providing Funds FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
(in milions) (Actual) (Estimate) (Estimate)
Army Corps of Engineers $ 0.3 $ 0.5 $ 0.5
Department of Commerce $ 8.2 $ 12.0 $ 14.8
Department of Defense $ 39.7 $ 37.4 $ 36.5
Department of Education $ 58.0 $ 60.4 $ 56.6
Department of Energy $ 0.1 $ 0.4 $ 0.4
Department of Health and Human Services $ 46.3 $ 54.9 $ 55.0
Department of Homeland Security $ 33.0 $ 37.2 $ 56.8
Department of Housing and Urban Development $ 41.2 $ 41.3 $ 45.8
Department of the Interior $ 66.0 $ 67.4 $ 70.5
Department of Justice $ 4.2 $ 4.6 $ 3.2
Department of Labor $ 5.8 $ 5.9 $ 5.9
Department of Transportation $ 83.5 $ 52.6 $ 45.7
Department of the Treasury $ 0.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.2
Environmental Protection Agency $ 6.7 $ 6.7 $ 21.4
Federal Communications Commission $ 16.6 $ 18.1 $ 17.5
National Endowment for the Arts $ 0.3 $ 0.3 $ 0.6
National Science Foundation $ 0.2 $ 0.3 $ 0.0

Social Security Administration $102.0 $112.0 $117.0
U.S. Department of Agriculture $ 84.0 $ 98.8 $126.9
Total $ 596.2 $ 611.0 $ 675.3

* This table does not include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding provided to these
Federal agencies.

Source: Office of Management and Budget, August 2009 BDR 09-39 Tracking Federal Spending in the Territory of Guam: Summary of Responses by
Agency, provided 12/10/2009.

47
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


48
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix C. Guam-Related Completed Audits and
Government Accountability Office Testimony

Appendix C. Guam-Related
Completed Audits and Government
Accountability Office Testimony
Agency and Report Report
Office Project Title Number Date
Defense Infrastructure: Guam Needs Timely Information From DoD
GAO-10- November 13,
GAO to Meet Challenges in Planning and Financing Off-Base Projects
90R 2009
and Programs to Support a Larger Military Presence
Defense Infrastructure: DoD Needs to Provide Updated Labor
October 14,
GAO Requirements to Help Guam Adequately Develop Its Labor Force for GAO-10-72
2009
the Military Buildup
Defense Infrastructure: Planning Challenges Could Increase Risks
GAO-09-
GAO for DoD in Providing Utility Services When Needed to Support the June 30, 2009
653
Military Buildup on Guam
High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Guam Address Challenges GAO-09-
GAO April 9, 2009
Caused by DoD-Related Growth 500R
Defense Infrastructure: Opportunity to Improve the Timeliness of
GAO-08- September 17,
GAO Future Overseas Planning Reports and Factors Affecting the Master
1005 2008
Planning Effort for the Military Buildup on Guam
Defense Logistics: Navy Needs to Develop and Implement a Plan to
GAO-08-
GAO Ensure That Voyage Repairs Are Available to Ships Operating Near May 12, 2008
427
Guam When Needed
Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military
GAO-08-
GAO Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges May 1, 2008
722T
Yet to Be Addressed
Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are Improving, but
GAO-07- September 12,
GAO DoD Needs to Provide Congress Additional Information About the
1015 2007

Military Buildup on Guam
Department of the Navy Proposed FY 2011 Military Construction
September 30,
NAVAUDSVC Projects Related to the U.S. Marine Corps Okinawa/Guam Base N2009-0051
2009
Relocation
Department of the Navy Acquisition Checks and Balances at Naval September 30,
NAVAUDSVC N2009-0050
Base Guam Supported Activities 2009
Ocean Bills of Lading for Naval Facilities Engineering Command September 16,
NAVAUDSVC N2009-0047
Marianas Contracts 2009
Status of the Department of the Navy Processes and Controls
NAVAUDSVC Regarding the Management of the Government of Japan Funds N2009-0038 July 9, 2009
Related to the Marine Corps’ Relocation
Verification of an Acquisition Strategy for the U.S. Marine Corps’
NAVAUDSVC N2009-0028 May 8, 2009
Relocation Effort
Auditor General Advisory: Department of the Navy’s Processes Used
NAVAUDSVC N2009-0024 April 7, 2009
to Establish Water Rates for Guam Waterworks Authority

49 FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix C. Guam-Related Completed Audits and
Government Accountability Office Testimony

Agency and Report Report
Office Project Title Number Date
Department of the Navy Proposed FY 2010 Government of
September 17,
NAVAUDSVC Japan-Funded Military Construction Projects Related to the U.S. N2008-0050
2008
Marine Corps Okinawa/Guam Base Relocation
NAVAUDSVC Status of Internal Controls at the Joint Guam Program Office N2008-0030 April 8, 2008

50
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix D. Acronyms

Appendix D. Acronyms
CNMI Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service
DPRI Defense Posture Review Initiative
DoD Department of Defense
DOI Department of the Interior
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
GOJ Government of Japan
ICG Interagency Coordination Group Of Inspectors General for Guam Realignment
IG Inspector General
IPG Interagency Planning Group
JGPO Joint Guam Program Office
NAVAUDSVC Naval Audit Service
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OUSD(C) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer)
SPE Special Purpose Entity


51
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


52
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix E. Endnotes

Appendix E. Endnotes
1. “Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America
Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and
their Dependents from Okinawa to Guam,” February 17, 2009, www.mofa.go.jp/.
2. “BDR 09-39 Tracking Federal Spending in the Territory of Guam: Summary of Responses by
Agency,” August 2009, provided by the Office of Management and Budget on December 10, 2009.
3. “Where is the Money Going,” Agency Reported Data Map: 2009 Guam American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Funding, January 6, 2010, http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/agency/Pages/
AgencyReportedDataMap.aspx
4. NAVFAC Fact Sheet, “About the Naval Facilities Engineering Command,” June 19, 2008, https://
portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/.
5. Department of Transportation, response to DoD OIG data call, December 28, 2009.
6. “JGPO: Guam Military Realignment Overview,” February 5, 2008, http://www.jgpo.navy.mil/.
7. “Japanese Note,” July 11, 2009, http://www.mofa.go.jp/.
8. “NAVFAC, “Construction Capacity Analysis,” February 25, 2009, http://www.samehonolulu.org/
COP/Presentations.htm.
9. GAO-08-722T, “Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military Buildup on Guam
Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet to Be Addressed,” May 1, 2008, http://www.
gao.gov/.
10. “Draft: Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement: Guam and
CNMI Military Relocation,” November 2009, http://www.guambuildupeis.us/documents.


53 FebRuaRy 1, 2010


54
FebRuaRy 1, 2010

Appendix F. Source Documentation

• Public Law 111-84, “National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010,” October 28, 2009, Sections
2831 - 2837, http://thomas.loc.gov.
• Congressional Research Service Report, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments,” May 22, 2009, http://
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/.
• Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs, “Insular Area Summary for Guam,” http://www.
doi.gov/oia/. (Updated: August 24, 2009)
• “United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation,” May 1, 2006, http://www.usfj.
mil/.
• “Implementation Guidance for the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the
Ministry of Defense of Japan on Projects funded by Japanese Cash Contributions,” June 30, 2009,
provided by JGPO.
• “Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America
Concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and
their Dependents from Okinawa to Guam,” February 17, 2009, www.mofa.go.jp/.
• NAVFAC Fact Sheet, “About the Naval Facilities Engineering Command,” June 19, 2008, https://
portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/.
• “Guam Realignment Program Overview,” July 2009, provided by JGPO.
• GAO-07-145 - Summary, “Military Operations: High-Level DoD Action Needed to Address Long-
standing Problems with Management and Oversight of Contractors Supporting Deployed Forces,”
December 18, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/.
• Statement of Admiral Timothy J. Keating, U.S. Navy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Before
the House Armed Services Committee on U.S. Pacific Command Posture, March 12, 2008, http://
www.docstoc.com/docs/5588750/FOR-OFFICIAL-USE-ONLY-UNTIL-RELEASED-BY-THE-
HOUSE. (Accessed: December 8, 2009)
• “U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future,” October 29, 2005, http://

www.usfj.mil/.
• “Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO),” Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, August 25,
2006, provided by JGPO.
• GAO-09-653, “Defense Infrastructure: Planning Challenges Could Increase Risks for DoD in
Providing Utility Services When Needed to Support the Military Buildup on Guam,” June 30, 2009,
http://www.gao.gov/.
• “Overview of the Draft Guam Joint Military Master Plan,” April 2008, www.jgpo.navy.mil/.
• Appendix E: Scoping Meeting Exhibits, http://www.guambuildupeis.us/archived-documents.
(Accessed: December 4, 2009)
• “Guam DPRI Update: Execution/Acquisition Strategy, Guam Industry Forum III,” April 28, 2009,
http://www.guamindustryforum.com/.
• GAO-08-722T, “Defense Infrastructure: Planning Efforts for the Proposed Military Buildup on
Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, with Many Challenges Yet to Be Addressed,” May 1, 2008, http://
www.gao.gov/.

55
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


• “Draft: Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement: Guam and
CNMI Military Relocation,” November 2009, http://www.guambuildupeis.us/documents.
• “Statement of Admiral Timothy J. Keating, U.S. Navy Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Before
the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. Pacific Command Posture,” March 19, 2009, http://
www.pacom.mil/.
• N2008-0050, “Department of the Navy Proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Government of Japan-Funded
Military Construction Projects Related to the U.S. Marine Corps’ Okinawa/Guam Base Relocation,”
September 17, 2008.
• “JGPO: Guam Military Realignment Overview,” February 5, 2008, http://www.jgpo.navy.mil/.
• “Japanese Note,” July 11, 2009, http://www.mofa.go.jp/.
• “Joint Guam Program Office: SAME International Business Opportunity Workshop,” February 22,
2007, www.same.org/.
• “Government of Guam: 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) - Federal
Stimulus Funding, Department/Agency Grant Information,” June 30, 2009, http://www.
guamnewsfactor.com/images/stories/Adelup/govguam%20-%202009%20arra%20fund%20
report%20pe%206-30-2009.pdf.
• DoD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 2B, Chapter 6, “Military Construction/Family
Housing Appropriations,” July 2008, http://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/.
• Title 10, United States Code, Section 2350k, http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml.
• DoD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 12, Chapter 24, “Burdensharing and Overseas
Relocation Contributions by Foreign Allies,” August 2008, http://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/.
• Public Law 110-417, “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009,” October 14, 2008, http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/olc/docs/2009NDAA_PL110-417.pdf.
• DFAS Manual 7091.01, Chapter 2-8358, “Departmental Reporting,” August 4, 2009, http://asafm.
army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/Guidances/dfas/709701/fy2010/docs//2-8358.doc.
• NAVFAC Instruction 7820.1J, “Recovering Supervision, Inspection, and Overhead (SIOH) Services
at Engineering Field Divisions/Activities (EFD/EFA) and their Subordinate Organizations,”
February 9, 1998, https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/18543F15F935507DE0440003B

A8FC471.
• Federal Acquisition Regulation - Part 5, “Publicizing Contract Actions,” October 14, 2009, http://
farsite.hill.af.mil/.
• N2009-0038, “Status of the Department of the Navy Processes and Controls Regarding the
Management of the Government of Japan Funds Related to the Marine Corps’ Relocation,” July 9,
2009.
• N2009-0051, “Department of the Navy Proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Military Construction Projects
Related to the United States Marine Corps’ Okinawa/Guam Base Relocation,” September 30, 2009.
• N2009-0029, “Internal Controls Over the Department of the Navy’s Construction in Progress
Account,” May 21, 2009.
• “Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas,” June 2009, www.guamchamber.com.gu/
docs/2009/navfac-jun-09.pdf. (Accessed: December 7, 2009)
• NAVFAC Pacific Background Information, https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/
navfac/. (Accessed: December 7, 2009)

56
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


• “Briefing to the Guam Chamber of Commerce,” February 25, 2009, www.guamchamber.com.gu/
pdf/2009/admiral_presentation.pdf. (Accessed: December 22, 2009)
• BDR 09-39, “Tracking Federal Spending in the Territory of Guam, Summary of Responses by
Agency,” provided by the Office of Management and Budget.
• “FY 2009 ARRA Program Funding for Guam,” provided by the Office of Management and Budget.
• Marine Corps Times, “Japanese PM: No meeting with Obama on Futenma,” December 10, 2009,
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/kyodo_futenma_121009/.
• No. 785, “Embassy of the United States of America Note,” November 18, 2008, www.state.gov/
documents/organization/121124.pdf.
• DoD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 4, Chapter 17, “Expenses and Miscellaneous
Items,” June 2000, http://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/.
• “Guam Military Realignment Update and Acquisition Strategy,” August 5, 2009, https://ndia-sd.
org/.
• “Guam Construction Capacity Analysis,” February 25, 2009, http://samehonolulu.org/.
• “Where is the Money Going,” Agency Reported Data Map: 2009 Guam American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act Funding. http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/agency/Pages/
AgencyReportedDataMap.aspx (Accessed: January 6, 2010)
• Defense Acquisition University, “Operations and Maintenance Funds,” https://acc.dau.mil/
CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=28980 (Accessed: January 11, 2010)
• “Marine Corps Bases, Japan DPRI Update,” September 24, 2009, provided by Marine Corps Bases,
Japan.
• “Guam Program Review,” April 11, 2007, provided by JGPO.
• Secretary of the Navy, “Report on Department of Defense Planning Efforts for Guam,” September
15, 2008.
• JGPO, “Guam Executive Council,” August 17, 2009, provided by JGPO.
• DFAS, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 7, 2010.
• JGPO, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 7, 2010.

• Office of Economic Adjustment, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 7, 2010.
• Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Budget), Response to DoD OIG
Data Call, January 7, 2010.
• Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Response to DoD
OIG Data Call, January 8, 2010 and January 11, 2010.
• NAVFAC Headquarters, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 12, 2010, January 14, 2010, and
January 5, 2010.
• NAVAUDSVC, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, December 29, 2009 and January 5, 2010.
• Department of Transportation, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, December 28, 2009.
• GAO, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, December 8, 2009.
• Department of Labor, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, December 18, 2009.
• Department of the Interior, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 8, 2010.
• Department of Education, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, December 22, 2009.

57
FebRuaRy 1, 2010


• Department of Justice, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, December 23, 2009.
• Air Force Audit Agency, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 4, 2010.
• Army Audit Agency, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 7, 2010.
• Department of Health and Human Services, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 11, 2010.
• Department of Housing and Urban Development, Response to DoD OIG Data Call,
January 13, 2010.
• Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 12, 2010.
• United States Marine Corps, Criminal Investigations Division, Response to DoD OIG Data Call,
January 13, 2010.
• Department of Homeland Security, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 14, 2010.
• Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 14, 2010.
• Department of Agriculture, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 14, 2010.
• Department of Energy, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 14, 2010.
• Environmental Protection Agency, Response to DoD OIG Data Call, January 20, 2010.
• DoD Defense Imagery web site, http://www.defenseimagery.mil

GGuam RealiGnment RepoRt
uam RealiGnment RepoRt
FFebRuaRy 2010
ebRuaRy 1, 2010
FebRuaRy 1, 1, 2010 58
58

Guam Realignment Annual Report 2010

Guam Realignment Annual Report 2010

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Guam Realignment Annual Report 2010 (20)

More from Department of Defense (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Guam Realignment Annual Report 2010