Congress originally ordered destruction of all U.S. chemical arms by 1996 and thought it would cost $1.7 billion. Recently, after a long string of revised estimates, the Army projected it will really cost $27.8 billion and not be finished until 2023.

Now, Pentagon inspectors worry even that may be too optimistic. They say big delays and cost overruns "will likely continue, making it difficult or impossible for the program to meet scheduled deadlines" — unless significant changes are made.

That is according to a report issued five months ago by the Army Audit Agency. The Deseret Morning News just obtained the report through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The report complains that contracts inadvertently reward contractors for delays and that contractors often receive performance bonuses when not earned. The Army also fails to investigate whether past delays and overruns will likely repeat, and it often fails to incorporate lessons from problems into projections for later work, the document said.

The findings are important to Utah, home of Deseret Chemical Depot and its Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. Before incineration of arms began at the disposal site, the depot stored 44.5 percent of the nation's chemical-arms stockpile — with smaller amounts scattered at eight other facilities nationally.

As of Feb. 7, the depot had destroyed 58 percent of its original stockpile. Pentagon budgets project continued funding for destruction work there through 2016 — although work schedules estimate the destruction could be completed there as early as 2012. Work at other bases could last until 2023.

Pentagon inspectors wrote that program projections may be too optimistic — mostly because the Army is not keeping close enough watch on contractors running destruction plants, nor giving them enough incentives to complete work on time.

In fact, inspectors say, the Army is doing the opposite — inadvertently giving contractors financial incentives to delay.

In part, they said, that is because contracts now cover their costs plus extra fees for administration. The longer facilities operate, the more contractors make — even if they miss some bonuses designed to reward on-time and environmentally sound work.

"Contractors had little incentive to — and weren't sufficiently penalized for failing to — prevent or minimize cost and schedule growth," inspectors complained.

They said they found that incentive bonuses for on-time and safe work are often given anyway, even when not earned, making the situation worse.