1. Consolidation of CONUS Replacement Center
Decision Brief
Consolidation of CONUS Replacement Center 1

2. Purpose
To obtain a resource informed decision on the consolidation to one location for the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC)
The CRC Battalion receives and processes Non-unit Related Personnel (NRP) for deployment to and redeployment from the theaters of operation, provides command and control, logistical support, and executes Theater Specific Individual Readiness Training (TSIRT) in order to support overseas contingency operations. 2

3. Problem Statement
The current CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) operations are geographically dispersed and may not be economically sustainable nor operationally feasible in a resource constrained environment. 3

4. Enterprise Partners
HQ FORSCOM IMCOM AMC/ASC MEDCOM NGB TRADOC NETCOM HRC INSCOM USACE HQDA G1/G3/G4 HQ First Army Fort Bliss Fort Benning Camp Atterbury, IN (CAIN) Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL)

5. Scope Excludes a permanent split base course of action
Affects: Soldiers (all COMPOS), DACs, Non-LOGCAP, Sister Service
Excludes: Foreign Service Institute and LOGCAP (contractors)
Excludes air transportation and sunk costs
Identifies cost elements starting with upfront investments required for FY13 through the end of POM FY16-20
Identifies only locations that are CONUS-based
Establishes requirements based on a training load of per/wk

6. Facts / Assumptions Assumptions FACTS
FORSCOM accepted Mission Command of CRC 1 May 13
AMC, TRADOC and USACE continue to fund CRC for FY13
1OCT13 is Full Operational Capability
OCO funds will be used in FY13
OCO funds requested for FY14-15
Assumptions
First Army is the executing agent for CRC regardless of COA
Throughput continues to decrease as OEF draws down
OCAR supports the 5 AGR for the CRC mission
OCO funding available FY14-15, not available beginning FY16
Funding shifts to base for POM FY16-20

7. Constraints Soldiers train MIL/DAC BMM access
Future mobilization authority
Future resource environment

8. COAs
COA 1 – Consolidate all CRC operations at Ft. Bliss, TX NLT 1OCT13
COA 2 – Consolidate all CRC operations at Ft. Benning, GA NLT 1OCT13
COA 3 – Consolidate all CRC operations at JBMDL, NJ NLT 1OCT13
COA 4 – Consolidate all CRC operations at Camp Atterbury, IN (CAIN) NLT 1OCT13
COA 5 – Move Mil/DACs to Ft. Bliss, Non-LOGCAP remain at CAIN, consolidate all CRC operations at Ft. Bliss.

9. Screening Criteria
Screening Criteria
Outcome
Timing
Executable based on COA description
YES / NO
Sufficient
Available BASOPS infrastructure to support surge up to personnel/WK
Legality
Violates no laws, statute, reg
Funding
Required funding will be available
Screening criteria are used to ensure solutions considered can solve the problem and are feasible
Each COA must meet all defined screening criteria, if not it is rejected from further analysis
Other examples include affordability, feasibility, etc.

10. Screening Criteria Applied to COAs
Benning – IMCOM stated billeting max is 360 and SRP throughput is 500
JBMDL – SRP* max throughput – physical building constraint
medical credentialing packets would be sent to Keller ACH West Point, NY
*SRP – Soldier Readiness Processing (Actual screening, medical, dental, legal, wills etc.)

11. Quantifiable and non-Quantifiable
Rating Criteria for
Quantifiable and non-Quantifiable
Non-Quantifiables are criteria evaluated in non-quantitative terms (e.g. risk, perception, responsiveness)
Need to be mapped to a numeric rating system so they can be compared to quantified criteria

12. Quantifiable and Non-quantifiable Benefits
Weight is a Relative Significant of a Decision Criterion

13. Consolidate at Ft. Bliss - COA 1 Evaluation Analysis
Score = Weight *Rating
Higher number is better

14. Consolidate at CAIN - COA 4 Evaluation Analysis
Score = Weight *Rating
Higher number is better

15. Cain to Ft. Bliss - COA 5 Evaluation Analysis
Score = Weight *Rating
Higher number is better

16. COA Comparison

17. Current – FY20 Best Value Comparison
COA 1 - BLISS
COA 4- CAIN
COA 5- CAIN to BLISS
Cost
$287.8M
$282.9M
$289.9M
Benefit
198
152
172
Cost/Benefit Ratio
1454
1861
1685
Budget Impact
Start Up Costs
$12.2M $0
*All costing based on throughput of 850 personnel/wk
*Lowest ratio is Best Value
Best Value = Tradeoff between cost and performance that provides the greatest overall benefit under the specified selection criteria without regard to risk

18. Operational Risk Assessment
COA 1 – Fort Bliss
COA 4 – CAIN
Risk: TAA 490K Reorg. / LOGCAP impact on Fort Bliss
- Consequence: Loss of flexibility based on execution at FOC not being informed by TAA or LOGCAP impacts on installation.
- Mitigation Plan: Delay Decision or phase move 1 2 3 4 5
Risk: Loss of Mobilization Authority
Consequence: NGB inability to execute with mobilized reservists
- Mitigation Plan: Contract or send AC soldiers TDY to do mission
Likelihood
Consequence
Risk: AMC Ability to execute at two locations
Consequence: Degraded contractor support
- Mitigation Plan: Contract or use local AC soldiers
COA 5 – CAIN to Bliss

19. Bliss/CAIN -> Bliss Adaptability as conditions* change
COA Comparison Matrix
COA 1 - Bliss
COA 4 - CAIN
COA 5 – Hybrid
Bliss/CAIN -> Bliss
Cost Benefit 1 3 2
Operational Risk
Adaptability as conditions* change
TOTALS
(lower is better) 6 7 4
* Conditions
- TAA
- OEF
- Sequestration
- POM 15-19
All COAs are feasible
RECOMMENDATION: COA 5
Provides the Army with the greatest flexibility to adapt based on changing conditions.

20. Way Ahead FORSCOM informs HQDA of the CRC decision
Move CRC-Benning (MIL/DAC) to Ft Bliss NLT 1 Oct 13
Sustain Non-LOGCAP Individual Pre-deployment validation at CAIN until HQDA completes a study on full consolidation of the LOGCAP and Non-LOGCAP operations

21. Background
Mission
The mission of the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) is to receive and process individual non-unit related personnel (NRP) of all branches and components, civilians, employees and contractors for deployment to and re-deployment. The CRC uses a deployment model of seven days for preparation and validation of NRP
Historical Information
The CRC Concept Plan was approved in June The CRCs were at different installation sites, so the oversight responsibilities were split between Forces Command (FORSCOM) and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). The number of CRC locations has changed many times over the years to accommodate the changing needs of the Army, deployment requirements, and the requirements associated with Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)  
Executive Agent Responsibilities
In September 2007, the VCSA approved FORSCOM taking assumption as the CRC Executing Agent. However, no executing order has been published and TRADOC retained the mission until 01MAY13 21

22. With FY12 historical throughput averages
Current and Proposed CRC Locations
With FY12 historical throughput averages
CAIN NLC
+466 pax/wk
Deploy 284
Redeploy 182
+23,766 pax/yr
+810 pax/wk
Deploy 514
Redeploy 296
+41,310 pax/yr
Proposed CRCs
USACE
+94 pax/wk
Deploy 60
Redeploy 34
+4794 pax/yr
CRC, Benning
+250 pax/wk
Deploy 170
Redeploy 80
+ 12,750 pax/yr
Current Locations
Proposed Location (s) 22

23. Manpower Analysis
* If no funding is available BMM impact on installation is shown in last row