The Zero Base Review That Saved $2.4M at a Nuclear Missile Base Question every dollar

Published: February 20, 2026 | By Gabriel Denny

At Malmstrom Air Force Base, I led a Zero Base Review that identified $2.4 million in annual savings.

Not through layoffs. Not through service cuts. Through systematic review of every dollar spent.

Most companies budget by taking last year's numbers and adding 3-5%. That's incremental budgeting—and it's lazy.

Zero-based budgeting starts from zero and justifies every expense. Here's the framework.

What Is Zero-Based Budgeting?

Traditional budgeting:

Start with last year's budget
Add inflation adjustment
Maybe cut a percentage if leadership demands it
Don't question baseline spending

Zero-based budgeting:

Start from zero
Justify every expense as if it's new
Question every assumption
Prioritize by value to mission

The difference? You find waste that's been hiding in "last year's budget" for years.

The Malmstrom Challenge

Malmstrom AFB is home to 150 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. The mission: defend America. The budget: $125 million annually across operations.

Leadership challenge: "Find efficiencies without compromising the nuclear mission."

Translation: Save money without cutting corners on safety or readiness.

The Zero Base Review Framework

Step 1: Break Down Every Expense

We categorized every dollar into:

Mission-critical: Direct nuclear operations (untouchable)
Mission-supporting: Necessary but potentially optimizable
Administrative: Overhead that could be questioned
Discretionary: Nice-to-have but not essential

Step 2: Question Every Assumption

For each expense category, we asked:

Why do we do this? (What's the purpose?)
What if we stopped? (What breaks?)
Is there a better way? (Can we achieve the same outcome cheaper?)
Who benefits? (Is this value-add or tradition?)

Step 3: Build From Zero

Instead of defending cuts, we made teams justify additions:

"If we had $0 and had to rebuild this budget, what would we absolutely need?"
"What's the minimum viable spend to accomplish the mission?"
"What should we add back after meeting baseline requirements?"

What We Found

1. Duplicate Software Subscriptions ($180K/year)

Different departments buying the same tools. Nobody knew what others had purchased.

Fix: Centralized software inventory, eliminated duplicates, negotiated enterprise pricing.

2. Inefficient Contract Structures ($320K/year)

Multiple small contracts for similar services. Each with its own overhead.

Fix: Consolidated contracts, improved terms, reduced administrative burden.

3. Legacy Processes That Could Be Automated ($420K/year)

Manual data entry, paper-based approvals, redundant reconciliations.

Fix: Automated workflows, digital approvals, system integrations.

4. Travel & Training Inefficiencies ($540K/year)

Expensive in-person training when virtual options existed. Unnecessary travel tier upgrades.

Fix: Virtual training where appropriate, standardized travel policies, bulk bookings.

5. Supply Chain Optimization ($940K/year)

Ordering frequency misaligned with actual need. Excess inventory sitting unused.

Fix: Just-in-time ordering, inventory reduction, vendor term renegotiation.

Total identified: $2.4M in annual savings

What We Didn't Cut

Importantly, we didn't cut:

Personnel (zero layoffs)
Safety equipment or training
Mission-critical operations
Quality of service

This wasn't an austerity program. It was efficiency improvement.

How to Apply This to Your Business

1. Pick One Department/Category

Don't try to zero-base your entire budget at once. Start with one area:

Marketing spend
Software subscriptions
Administrative overhead
Travel & entertainment

2. List Every Expense

Pull 12 months of spending. Categorize it. Get granular.

3. Ask the Hard Questions

For each line item:

What's the purpose?
What if we stopped spending this?
Is there a cheaper alternative?
What's the ROI?

4. Rebuild From Zero

"If I had to justify this expense to investors, could I?"

If yes → keep it

If no → cut it or find a better way

5. Implement and Monitor

Cutting spend is easy. Keeping it cut is hard.

Build accountability:

Monthly reviews of expense categories
Approval workflows for new spending
Regular zero-base reviews (annually or every 2 years)

Common Objections (And Responses)

"This will take too much time."

It took us 90 days to save $2.4M annually. That's a pretty good ROI on time invested.

"We'll upset vendors."

Vendors respect businesses that manage costs well. We renegotiated, we didn't burn bridges.

"What if we cut something important?"

That's why you question and analyze—not just slash blindly. Mission-critical stays. Waste goes.

"Our budget is already tight."

Nuclear operations had "tight" budgets too. We still found $2.4M. You'd be surprised what you find when you question assumptions.

The Results

After implementing the Zero Base Review:

✅ $2.4M in annual savings identified
✅ $1.8M implemented in year one
✅ Zero negative impact to mission readiness
✅ Improved efficiency across operations
✅ Created culture of cost consciousness

More importantly, we changed how leadership thought about budgeting. Instead of "what did we spend last year?", the question became "what do we actually need?"

The Bottom Line

Incremental budgeting perpetuates waste. You keep spending on things you don't need just because "it was in last year's budget."

Zero-based budgeting forces discipline:

Start from zero
Justify every dollar
Question every assumption
Cut waste, keep value

At Malmstrom, it saved $2.4M without compromising the nuclear mission.

What could it save for your business?

Want to find hidden waste in your budget?

Schedule a Financial Health Assessment and I'll show you where a Zero Base Review could deliver savings.

← Back to Blog

About Gabriel Denny

Led Zero Base Review at Malmstrom AFB that saved $2.4M annually. No layoffs. No mission compromise. Just disciplined budgeting.