Monash
Military Professional
Medal, shmedal I would have asked for 20% of the savings. :smile:
Congressional Budget Office reports
- Thread starter DOR
- Start date
Medal, shmedal I would have asked for 20% of the savings. :smile:
I believe the Sicilian expression is fari vagnari u pizzu
Nope. There was no special savings that a history major with no business or financial background with a great NCO who were scared to run out of money a month before the October gunnery. Not anything special. What we learned that year was pushing fresh grease daily on all the vehicles and changing oil 250-500 miles early you srd for a SFC or Captain.pent a lot less on CL IX repair parts.
Our tracks and trucks were OLD!!! My battalion was a mech battalion which had been straight leg Infantry 3 years before I got there so we had old, cast off vehicles from across the Army.
Got an impact Meritorious Service Medal (so did my NCOIC) for that. The MSM is usually an end of tour awa
Pretty fly for a white guy!
Sadly, not an option for a commissioned officer. At the time warrant officers and enlisted folks were eligible for a cash award along with government employees but not commissioned officers.
But I think the MSM and what it displayed allowed me early on to have an alternate designation (all officers have to have a secondary specialty outside of their corps branch) of Procurement,,,which made the start for me of a 34 year civiliain career!
tbm3fan
Defense Professional
Medal must weigh a ton if you have to go to physical therapy. Gold or lead?
Well I got 4 MSMs in my career but that one weighed the most. I think it was made from unobtainium!
DOR
Voter
This one's for AR--
Purposes and Uses of Special and Incentive Pay for Military Personnel
CBO analyzes funding for special and incentive pay for active-duty service members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and explores how those types of pay have been used to address personnel shortfalls.
Special and incentive (S&I) pay is a particular category of compensation paid to eligible service members. The Department of Defense (DoD) uses that pay to attract or retain personnel in certain occupations (by offering bonuses, for example) or to compensate personnel for the unusual conditions of some assignments or for serving in designated locations (by offering incentives to perform unusually dangerous duty, for instance, or to serve in austere locations). Those types of pay are provided in addition to other elements of military cash compensation.
In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes funding for S&I pay for active-duty service members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and explores how those types of pay have been used to address personnel shortfalls.
Purposes and Uses of Special and Incentive Pay for Military Personnel
CBO analyzes funding for special and incentive pay for active-duty service members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and explores how those types of pay have been used to address personnel shortfalls.
Special and incentive (S&I) pay is a particular category of compensation paid to eligible service members. The Department of Defense (DoD) uses that pay to attract or retain personnel in certain occupations (by offering bonuses, for example) or to compensate personnel for the unusual conditions of some assignments or for serving in designated locations (by offering incentives to perform unusually dangerous duty, for instance, or to serve in austere locations). Those types of pay are provided in addition to other elements of military cash compensation.
In this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzes funding for S&I pay for active-duty service members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and explores how those types of pay have been used to address personnel shortfalls.
- Funding. S&I pay accounts for a small share of the services’ military personnel appropriation, which provides for basic pay, retirement pay, and other personnel-related costs. In 2021, that share for all four services was 4 percent (or about $5 billion of the $132 billion appropriation for military personnel). For service members who receive S&I pay, that compensation is a small part of their overall cash compensation, on average, although that portion is larger for personnel in some occupations.
- Purposes. About 70 percent of the funding for S&I pay in 2021 was used to attract or retain service members with desired skills. The remaining 30 percent was used to compensate service members for risks and conditions that are largely specific to the military: performing onerous or dangerous tasks or serving in designated locations. The average amount of S&I pay used to attract or retain personnel was about $12,000 per recipient—roughly five times the amount paid per recipient for performing onerous and dangerous tasks or for serving in certain locations.
- Occupational and Activity Groups. Enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for enlisted personnel in occupations with staffing shortages accounted for about one-third of S&I pay in 2021. Other types of S&I pay for officers and enlisted personnel were ongoing compensation or onetime bonuses for occupations in aviation, health care, and naval activities; other occupations or activities accounted for the rest.
- Use Among the Services. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps spent different portions of their military compensation appropriation on S&I pay. Between 2011 and 2021, the Navy allocated more of its military personnel appropriation (5.1 percent, on average) to S&I pay than the other services did, probably because a significant fraction of Navy personnel receive pay related to sea duty, which is considered onerous. About 40 percent of active-duty personnel received one or more types of S&I pay in 2021.
- Use for Personnel Shortfalls. In CBO’s estimation, there is no consistent relationship between changes in the amount of attraction and retention pay per recipient and the nation’s unemployment rate. Between 2011 and 2021, the amount per recipient both increased and decreased, whereas the unemployment rate mostly decreased. Nevertheless, DoD has usually used bonuses to address recruitment challenges to a greater extent in a tight labor market than in times when the labor market is not as strong.
Thanks, DOR.
There have been various uses of these categories over my 47+ years with the Army. Back in 1976 I got $100 monthly bonus cause I joined a SOF unit in the National Guard. That was my forst...and last...bonus I received.
In the Army this kind of pay is used as enlistment bonuses, i.e., if you enlisted for Infantry Airborne 4 years for your initial enlistment you could get a $18000 bonus in 1988. The enlistment and reenlistment bonuses are used to fill tough slots...pilots, SOF, certain medical specialties. But we do not pay a bonus for excellence in your job as the Navy & Air Force may do.
It's a mixed bag across the Services how these are used.
BTW, in Civil Service if you get into a certain career path...like mine...you can get bonuses for job performance which are not available to general members. It is a reward for taking the higher risk jobs. The best part is those bonuses figure into your toal annual compenasation and means with the computation for your retirement pension. So for a comparable someone of the same GS rank as me but with a lower risk slot can mean $750-$1000 a month difference in pension. Totally worth the risks to me.
There have been various uses of these categories over my 47+ years with the Army. Back in 1976 I got $100 monthly bonus cause I joined a SOF unit in the National Guard. That was my forst...and last...bonus I received.
In the Army this kind of pay is used as enlistment bonuses, i.e., if you enlisted for Infantry Airborne 4 years for your initial enlistment you could get a $18000 bonus in 1988. The enlistment and reenlistment bonuses are used to fill tough slots...pilots, SOF, certain medical specialties. But we do not pay a bonus for excellence in your job as the Navy & Air Force may do.
It's a mixed bag across the Services how these are used.
BTW, in Civil Service if you get into a certain career path...like mine...you can get bonuses for job performance which are not available to general members. It is a reward for taking the higher risk jobs. The best part is those bonuses figure into your toal annual compenasation and means with the computation for your retirement pension. So for a comparable someone of the same GS rank as me but with a lower risk slot can mean $750-$1000 a month difference in pension. Totally worth the risks to me.
DOR
Voter
An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2024 Shipbuilding Plan
The Navy’s shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2024 described three alternative projections of the composition of its fleet over the next 30 years. Under the three alternatives, the fleet would comprise between 319 and 367 battle force ships by 2053.
CBO estimates that total shipbuilding costs would average about $34 billion to $36 billion (in 2023 dollars) over the next 30 years, which is 14 percent to 18 percent more than the Navy estimates. The Navy’s total budget would increase from $245 billion today to more than $300 billion (in 2023 dollars) in 2053.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59508
The Navy’s shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2024 described three alternative projections of the composition of its fleet over the next 30 years. Under the three alternatives, the fleet would comprise between 319 and 367 battle force ships by 2053.
CBO estimates that total shipbuilding costs would average about $34 billion to $36 billion (in 2023 dollars) over the next 30 years, which is 14 percent to 18 percent more than the Navy estimates. The Navy’s total budget would increase from $245 billion today to more than $300 billion (in 2023 dollars) in 2053.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59508
DOR
Voter
CBO Releases an Updated Interactive Tool for Analyzing the Size and Cost of the U.S. Military
CBO has updated and enhanced its interactive force structure tool. The online tool lets users customize the structure of the U.S. military’s forces to see the effects on defense spending, or customize the defense budget to see the effects on the size and structure of the military. It also provides information about the major combat units that make up the armed forces, including their number, size, functions, and average annual costs over the 2024–2028 period.
Today, the Congressional Budget Office updated and enhanced its interactive force structure tool. The online tool lets users customize the structure of the U.S. military’s forces to see the effects on defense spending, or customize the defense budget to see the effects on the size and structure of the military. It also provides information about the major combat units that make up the armed forces, including their number, size, functions, and average annual costs over the 2024–2028 period.
What Is New in the Updated Version?
This new version includes updated costs and personnel numbers that reflect the Department of Defense’s 2024 budget request. In addition, it includes more precision about certain Army and Navy units. The Army’s field artillery brigades and air-defense brigades, which CBO previously included in support personnel and costs for brigade combat teams, are now separate units whose size can be adjusted directly. The Navy’s amphibious assault ships—some of the largest and most costly vessels in the U.S. fleet—have also been broken out separately from other, smaller amphibious ships.
How Can the Interactive Tool Be Useful?
Want to see what effect an increase or decrease of $50 billion a year in the defense budget would have on U.S. forces? Want to know how an increase in the number of ships or special forces would affect defense spending? The tool can help you answer those questions and explore other policy alternatives.
Educators can use the tool to introduce their students to the wide array of U.S. forces and engage in “what if” analysis of possible changes to those forces.
A tutorial page explains how to use the tool, a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) provides additional detailed information, and several spreadsheets show the data underlying the tool.
Can I See What Is Under the Hood?
The updated tool is based on a cost model for the military that CBO developed for its series of reports titled The U.S. Military’s Force Structure: A Primer. The tool shows the raw cost factors and quantities included in CBO’s model, allowing users to view, use, or alter the model. Users can also export detailed data files if they want to conduct more in-depth analysis than the tool permits. Those data files document all the cost factors and default settings used in the model, as well as technical factors such as phase-in rates, deflators, and CBO’s projections of the U.S. military’s costs over the next decade.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59681
CBO has updated and enhanced its interactive force structure tool. The online tool lets users customize the structure of the U.S. military’s forces to see the effects on defense spending, or customize the defense budget to see the effects on the size and structure of the military. It also provides information about the major combat units that make up the armed forces, including their number, size, functions, and average annual costs over the 2024–2028 period.
Today, the Congressional Budget Office updated and enhanced its interactive force structure tool. The online tool lets users customize the structure of the U.S. military’s forces to see the effects on defense spending, or customize the defense budget to see the effects on the size and structure of the military. It also provides information about the major combat units that make up the armed forces, including their number, size, functions, and average annual costs over the 2024–2028 period.
What Is New in the Updated Version?
This new version includes updated costs and personnel numbers that reflect the Department of Defense’s 2024 budget request. In addition, it includes more precision about certain Army and Navy units. The Army’s field artillery brigades and air-defense brigades, which CBO previously included in support personnel and costs for brigade combat teams, are now separate units whose size can be adjusted directly. The Navy’s amphibious assault ships—some of the largest and most costly vessels in the U.S. fleet—have also been broken out separately from other, smaller amphibious ships.
How Can the Interactive Tool Be Useful?
Want to see what effect an increase or decrease of $50 billion a year in the defense budget would have on U.S. forces? Want to know how an increase in the number of ships or special forces would affect defense spending? The tool can help you answer those questions and explore other policy alternatives.
Educators can use the tool to introduce their students to the wide array of U.S. forces and engage in “what if” analysis of possible changes to those forces.
A tutorial page explains how to use the tool, a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) provides additional detailed information, and several spreadsheets show the data underlying the tool.
Can I See What Is Under the Hood?
The updated tool is based on a cost model for the military that CBO developed for its series of reports titled The U.S. Military’s Force Structure: A Primer. The tool shows the raw cost factors and quantities included in CBO’s model, allowing users to view, use, or alter the model. Users can also export detailed data files if they want to conduct more in-depth analysis than the tool permits. Those data files document all the cost factors and default settings used in the model, as well as technical factors such as phase-in rates, deflators, and CBO’s projections of the U.S. military’s costs over the next decade.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59681
DOR
Voter
The Navy’s Costs to Eliminate Its Deferred Maintenance Backlog and to Renovate and Modernize Its Buildings
November 30, 2023
CBO estimates that eliminating the maintenance backlogs of roughly 20,000 buildings that the Navy uses and maintains in the United States would cost $17 billion. Renovating and modernizing the buildings would cost an additional $32 billion.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59381
November 30, 2023
CBO estimates that eliminating the maintenance backlogs of roughly 20,000 buildings that the Navy uses and maintains in the United States would cost $17 billion. Renovating and modernizing the buildings would cost an additional $32 billion.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59381
DOR
Voter
Atlas of Military Compensation
Since 2000, the total budget for military compensation has been rising steadily, even though the number of military personnel and veterans has been declining. Spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has accounted for most of that increase, rising from a small fraction of the total to about 60 percent of military compensation in the President’s 2024 budget request.
In the 2024 budget request, total military compensation is $551 billion. (Of that total, $230 billion is for the Department of Defense and $321 billion is for VA.) That amount represents an increase of 144 percent since 1980 (and 134 percent since 1999) after removing the effects of inflation.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59475
Since 2000, the total budget for military compensation has been rising steadily, even though the number of military personnel and veterans has been declining. Spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has accounted for most of that increase, rising from a small fraction of the total to about 60 percent of military compensation in the President’s 2024 budget request.
In the 2024 budget request, total military compensation is $551 billion. (Of that total, $230 billion is for the Department of Defense and $321 billion is for VA.) That amount represents an increase of 144 percent since 1980 (and 134 percent since 1999) after removing the effects of inflation.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59475
I'm sure we had the same spikes from 1964-75 because of WW 2 getting older & VN vets flooding the system.
Funny how that works...VA benefit requirements go up as a result of war.
DOR
Voter
Acquisition Costs of the Navy’s Medium Landing Ship
In fiscal year 2025, the Department of the Navy plans to start construction of the medium landing ship (LSM), a new small amphibious ship. Many facets of the program remain uncertain, such as the number of ships the Navy wants to buy, the design and capabilities of the ship, and the cost of the program.
By CBO’s estimates, an 18-ship LSM program would cost between $6.2 billion and $7.8 billion in 2024 (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or $340 million to $430 million per ship. CBO’s per-ship estimates range from two to roughly three times the Navy’s estimates for the 8 ships it wants to buy between 2025 and 2029.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60071
In fiscal year 2025, the Department of the Navy plans to start construction of the medium landing ship (LSM), a new small amphibious ship. Many facets of the program remain uncertain, such as the number of ships the Navy wants to buy, the design and capabilities of the ship, and the cost of the program.
By CBO’s estimates, an 18-ship LSM program would cost between $6.2 billion and $7.8 billion in 2024 (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or $340 million to $430 million per ship. CBO’s per-ship estimates range from two to roughly three times the Navy’s estimates for the 8 ships it wants to buy between 2025 and 2029.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60071
DOR
Voter
Testimony on the Cost of the Coast Guard’s Polar Security Cutter
CBO testifies about the agency’s analysis of the costs of the Coast Guard’s heavy polar icebreaker program, known as the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program, before the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security on May 7, 2024.
CBO finds that in 2024 dollars, the procurement cost of the first PSC would be about $1.9 billion. Subsequent ships would average about $1.6 billion each. Given those costs, the procurement cost of three PSCs would be about $5.1 billion. That amount is 60 percent greater than the Coast Guard’s most recent publicly released estimate for the procurement cost of three heavy icebreakers, which was provided to CBO by the Coast Guard in March 2024.
Chairman Gimenez, Ranking Member Thanedar, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the procurement costs of the Coast Guard’s heavy polar icebreaker program, known as the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program. In consultation with Committee staff, I have focused this short statement on providing a summary of the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the PSC program, which Chairman Green and Chairman Gimenez requested. That report is currently being drafted, and we expect to publish it this summer.
CBO’s findings are as follows:
The procurement cost of the first PSC would be about $1.9 billion.
Subsequent ships would average about $1.6 billion each. (All costs in this statement are expressed in 2024 dollars.)
Given those costs, the procurement cost of three PSCs would be about $5.1 billion.
That amount is 60 percent greater than the Coast Guard’s most recent publicly released estimate for the procurement cost of three heavy icebreakers, which was provided to CBO by the Coast Guard in March 2024.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60168
CBO testifies about the agency’s analysis of the costs of the Coast Guard’s heavy polar icebreaker program, known as the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program, before the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security on May 7, 2024.
CBO finds that in 2024 dollars, the procurement cost of the first PSC would be about $1.9 billion. Subsequent ships would average about $1.6 billion each. Given those costs, the procurement cost of three PSCs would be about $5.1 billion. That amount is 60 percent greater than the Coast Guard’s most recent publicly released estimate for the procurement cost of three heavy icebreakers, which was provided to CBO by the Coast Guard in March 2024.
Chairman Gimenez, Ranking Member Thanedar, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the procurement costs of the Coast Guard’s heavy polar icebreaker program, known as the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program. In consultation with Committee staff, I have focused this short statement on providing a summary of the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the PSC program, which Chairman Green and Chairman Gimenez requested. That report is currently being drafted, and we expect to publish it this summer.
CBO’s findings are as follows:
The procurement cost of the first PSC would be about $1.9 billion.
Subsequent ships would average about $1.6 billion each. (All costs in this statement are expressed in 2024 dollars.)
Given those costs, the procurement cost of three PSCs would be about $5.1 billion.
That amount is 60 percent greater than the Coast Guard’s most recent publicly released estimate for the procurement cost of three heavy icebreakers, which was provided to CBO by the Coast Guard in March 2024.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60168
DOR
Voter
Income of Black Working-Age Veterans
CBO compared economic outcomes from 2017 to 2019 of veterans who are Black, male, and working age (ages 22 to 54) with outcomes of two groups of working-age men: Black nonveterans and White veterans. The agency found that, on average, Black veterans had more earnings, higher rates of marriage and homeownership, and greater educational attainment than Black nonveterans did. But the average earnings of Black veterans and Black nonveterans did not differ among men with similar demographic characteristics (age, marital status, level of education, and region of residence).
Black veterans had less earnings, on average, and lower rates of marriage and homeownership than White veterans did. Among men whose demographic characteristics were similar, Black veterans earned about 20 percent less than White veterans did, on average.
In 2023, about 18 percent of veterans who had served in the military since the start of the first Gulf War were Black. A limited but growing body of research has examined the relationship between military service and economic outcomes of Black veterans, the largest minority group ever to have served. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office describes several economic outcomes of veterans who are Black, male, and working age (ages 22 to 54) and whose service began during or after August 1990. Using data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), CBO compared the outcomes of that group with outcomes of Black nonveterans and White veterans from 2017 to 2019.
CBO found the following:
CBO compared economic outcomes from 2017 to 2019 of veterans who are Black, male, and working age (ages 22 to 54) with outcomes of two groups of working-age men: Black nonveterans and White veterans. The agency found that, on average, Black veterans had more earnings, higher rates of marriage and homeownership, and greater educational attainment than Black nonveterans did. But the average earnings of Black veterans and Black nonveterans did not differ among men with similar demographic characteristics (age, marital status, level of education, and region of residence).
Black veterans had less earnings, on average, and lower rates of marriage and homeownership than White veterans did. Among men whose demographic characteristics were similar, Black veterans earned about 20 percent less than White veterans did, on average.
In 2023, about 18 percent of veterans who had served in the military since the start of the first Gulf War were Black. A limited but growing body of research has examined the relationship between military service and economic outcomes of Black veterans, the largest minority group ever to have served. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office describes several economic outcomes of veterans who are Black, male, and working age (ages 22 to 54) and whose service began during or after August 1990. Using data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), CBO compared the outcomes of that group with outcomes of Black nonveterans and White veterans from 2017 to 2019.
CBO found the following:
- Black veterans had more earnings, higher rates of marriage and homeownership, and greater educational attainment than Black nonveterans did.
- The average earnings of Black veterans and Black nonveterans did not differ among men with similar demographic characteristics (age, marital status, level of education, and region of residence).
- Black veterans had less earnings and lower rates of marriage and homeownership than White veterans did. Educational attainment was much the same for the two groups. Among men whose demographic characteristics were similar, Black veterans earned about 20 percent less than White veterans did, on average.
- Black veterans were more likely than White veterans to have disability ratings from VA, and their ratings were higher, on average. (VA disability ratings generally reflect the severity of a veteran’s service-connected conditions and are the basis for disability payments. The higher the rating, the more severe the conditions.) A larger percentage of Black veterans than White veterans received VA disability compensation and health care; but a greater share of White veterans used VA-supported home loans.
DOR
Voter
The Cost of the Coast Guard’s Polar Security Cutter
CBO Aug 21, 2024
On April 23, 2019, the Coast Guard awarded a contract to VT Halter Marine to build the first of a class of new heavy polar icebreakers, called the Polar Security Cutter (PSC). The service plans to name the first ship the Polar Sentinel. On December 29, 2021, the Coast Guard exercised an option under that contract to have Halter Marine build the second ship of the class. Halter Marine was subsequently purchased by Bollinger Shipyards in November 2022 and renamed Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding.
Construction of the lead ship in the PSC program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. In February 2024, the Coast Guard notified the Congress that the ship would experience cost growth in excess of 20 percent and a schedule delay in excess of one year. Despite a contract awarded five years ago, full construction of the lead ship has not begun, although the service is aiming to start by the end of calendar year 2024.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60170
The Deferred Maintenance Backlog for the Military Services’ Buildings
CBO Aug 22, 2024
The Department of Defense (DoD) has thousands of buildings on its bases. Together, the buildings cost several billion dollars each year to maintain, but funding for the task has regularly fallen short of the amounts that the department estimates would keep them all in working order. As a result, DoD faces a backlog of maintenance.
For this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the condition of more than 100,000 buildings that the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy use and maintain on their bases in the United States and its territories. On the basis of data provided by the services, which were current as of September 2020, CBO found the following:
CBO Aug 21, 2024
On April 23, 2019, the Coast Guard awarded a contract to VT Halter Marine to build the first of a class of new heavy polar icebreakers, called the Polar Security Cutter (PSC). The service plans to name the first ship the Polar Sentinel. On December 29, 2021, the Coast Guard exercised an option under that contract to have Halter Marine build the second ship of the class. Halter Marine was subsequently purchased by Bollinger Shipyards in November 2022 and renamed Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding.
Construction of the lead ship in the PSC program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. In February 2024, the Coast Guard notified the Congress that the ship would experience cost growth in excess of 20 percent and a schedule delay in excess of one year. Despite a contract awarded five years ago, full construction of the lead ship has not begun, although the service is aiming to start by the end of calendar year 2024.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60170
The Deferred Maintenance Backlog for the Military Services’ Buildings
CBO Aug 22, 2024
The Department of Defense (DoD) has thousands of buildings on its bases. Together, the buildings cost several billion dollars each year to maintain, but funding for the task has regularly fallen short of the amounts that the department estimates would keep them all in working order. As a result, DoD faces a backlog of maintenance.
For this report, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the condition of more than 100,000 buildings that the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy use and maintain on their bases in the United States and its territories. On the basis of data provided by the services, which were current as of September 2020, CBO found the following:
- Total Deferred Maintenance. The four services had about $50 billion in deferred maintenance on their bases; the Army and the Navy accounted for about 70 percent of the backlog.
- Deferred Maintenance Costs per Building and per Square Foot. The Marine Corps and the Navy had higher deferred maintenance costs, on both a per-building and a per–square-foot basis, because their buildings were reported to be in worse condition than the other services’ buildings.
- Buildings With High Replacement Values. The Air Force’s and the Navy’s buildings with the highest replacement costs, or (in DoD’s parlance) replacement values, tended to be in the best condition.
- The Aging of Buildings. The Marine Corps had, on average, newer buildings than the other services had, but the Marine Corps’ buildings appeared to degrade faster as they age.