Panel probes DOD military construction cost premium; DOD launches 60‑day MilCon review
Loading...
Summary
House members pressed DOD witnesses about annual military construction cost premiums, longer schedules and steps the department is taking — including a 60‑day review and potential expansion of progressive design‑build authorities — to reduce costs and speed delivery.
House members on the Readiness Subcommittee pressed Department of Defense officials about the large premium DOD pays to construct military facilities and what reforms are underway to bring costs and schedules closer to industry norms.
The most newsworthy point: Committee leaders and witnesses focused on a recurring estimate that building the same facility for the military costs roughly 40–65% more than in the private sector and that Congress authorized $17.5 billion in MilCon last year. Lawmakers said the premium diverts funds from readiness and urged immediate reforms.
Chairman Jack Bergman (in opening remarks) noted the military construction cost premium and the consequences of excess sustainment costs and underused facilities. Members then asked DOD witnesses about specific reform steps.
Mr. Thompson said Deputy Secretary Feinberg directed a real property and MilCon reform effort including a 60‑day review of procedures and portfolios; the review, he testified, is intended to identify where the department can “move left” (involve constructors earlier), expand progressive design‑build use and remove inefficiencies that add cost and time.
Representative Mills and other members pressed for specifics on progressive design‑build and earlier contractor involvement. Mills asked whether the 60‑day review would reveal issues long known to industry; Thompson responded the department has long‑standing insights and expects to return with a comprehensive list of recommendations to move schedule left and reduce cost.
Members asked for follow‑up deliverables: a cost analysis of excess infrastructure, annual sustainment costs for underused facilities, and a list of regulatory or procedural barriers that limit adoption of modern construction approaches. Witnesses agreed to provide those materials for the record.
Ending: Lawmakers signaled they will track the department’s 60‑day review results and may seek statutory or budgetary changes if the department cannot demonstrate measurable cost and schedule improvements.
