兰德-Military-Installation-Public_211页_1mb

Military Installation Public-to-Public Partnerships Summary

Core Content

This report explores the concept of public-to-public partnerships (PuPs) between U.S. military installations and surrounding communities. It provides an analysis of past and current experiences, outlines the benefits and opportunities of such partnerships, and identifies the barriers that hinder their development and implementation. The study was conducted by the RAND Corporation and cosponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD), including the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Army.

Main Views

• PuPs are common and diverse: Military installations are already involved in thousands of PuPs across various functional areas, including nonmission services like water, energy, and transportation, as well as mission-related activities such as testing and training.

• Legal authorities vary: Partnerships are developed using a range of legal frameworks, from general intergovernmental agreements like the 2013 NDAA Sec. 331 (now Sec. 351) to more specific statutes for particular functions, such as cultural resource management.

• Benefits are wide-ranging: PuPs offer both military installations and communities significant advantages, including cost savings, improved services, access to specialized resources, enhanced cooperation, and environmental benefits.

• Opportunities exist for future partnerships: The report highlights that there are many potential areas for new partnerships, especially in nonmission functions. However, it emphasizes the need for careful planning and the recognition that not all partnerships are equal in scope or complexity.

• Barriers are significant: Both installations and communities face challenges such as cultural differences, resistance to change, lack of commitment, communication issues, and regulatory constraints. Some of these are due to federal policies, like the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which can complicate the development of PuPs.

Key Information

Benefits of Installation PuPs

1. Improved military mission
2. Economic benefits (cost savings, earnings, cost avoidance)
3. Enhanced installation and community operations
4. Access to additional capacity in resources, skills, and infrastructure
5. Strategic regional collaboration
6. Better government and community relations
7. Enhanced outreach to military personnel and their families
8. Energy and environmental benefits
9. Facilitator and political support from federal, state, and local governments
10. Maintaining community character and way of life

Categories of Cost Savings from PuPs

1. Installation partner provides a lower-cost service than the installation itself.
2. Installation stops providing the service and relies on the partner with little to no payment.
3. Installation leases or sells land/asset in exchange for monetary or in-kind payments.
4. Community funds an installation service or facility.
5. Partner provides additional capacity to the installation, leading to cost avoidance.

Barriers to PuPs

• General partnership challenges

  • Cultural differences between military and communities
  • Resistance to change
  • Lack of commitment from partners
  • Risk management and sharing
  • Place-specific opportunities and obstacles

• Community challenges

  • Low community interest or political support
  • Staffing issues
  • Communication roadblocks
  • Slow military decision-making processes
  • Limited community capacity and expertise

• Installation challenges

  • Resistance to partnering
  • Staffing and communication issues
  • Security and access concerns
  • Assessing partnerships against other activities

• Partnership agreement and contract challenges

  • Choosing the right legal authority and agreement type
  • Disagreements among legal and contracting teams
  • Inability to monitor performance and provide oversight
  • Lack of flexibility in contracts

• Federal policy and regulatory challenges

  • Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) can increase time and cost
  • OMB Circular A-76 governs outsourcing decisions
  • Small and disadvantaged business set-asides and AbilityOne contracts may limit flexibility

Recommendations

• Installation-level actions:

  • Develop clear partnership strategies and objectives
  • Improve communication and collaboration with communities
  • Enhance staff training and capacity for partnership development

• Education and technical assistance:

  • Provide training for military services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
  • Support legal and contracting expertise for PuPs

• Federal policy adjustments:

  • Simplify regulatory requirements, such as the FAR, to reduce complexity
  • Clarify and streamline the use of OMB Circular A-76 and other federal guidelines

• Strategic DoD recommendations:

  • Promote a unified approach to partnership development across the DoD
  • Encourage greater use of PuPs to support both military and community needs
  • Strengthen interagency and intergovernmental collaboration

Conclusion

Installation PuPs are a valuable tool for both military installations and communities to address budget constraints and enhance operational and service capabilities. While the potential benefits are substantial, the development and implementation of these partnerships require careful consideration of legal, cultural, and logistical factors. The report emphasizes that successful partnerships often go beyond cost savings to foster long-term mutual benefits and strategic cooperation.

Appendix Highlights

• Presidio of Monterey Partnership: A successful example of a PuP that saved the Army over $2.5 million and improved local services.
• Economic and environmental benefits: Demonstrated through case studies such as the artificial coral reef project at Eglin Air Force Base.
• Legal frameworks: The report outlines various legal authorities, including the NDAA Sec. 331 and OMB Circular A-76, which guide the development of PuPs.

Summary of Key Findings

• Thousands of PuPs exist: Across nonmission and some mission areas.
• Diverse approaches and authorities: Used to develop and implement partnerships.
• Wide range of benefits: Both for installations and communities.
• Barriers exist: Including cultural, legal, and operational challenges.
• Recommendations: Offer a pathway to overcome these barriers and improve the effectiveness of PuPs.

This report serves as a guide for policymakers, military leaders, and community stakeholders in understanding and leveraging the potential of public-to-public partnerships for mutual benefit.