Defense Management: DOD Should Take Additional Actions to Enhance Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Efforts
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense's (DOD) Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (Corrosion Office) provides information, including the needed funding levels for the military departments' Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives (Corrosion Executives), in its Corrosion Office Annual Reports to Congress. Corrosion Executives are responsible for overseeing efforts to prevent and mitigate corrosion of weapon system programs and infrastructure. GAO reviewed these reports for fiscal years 2010 through 2017 and found inconsistencies in the reported funding levels. Specifically, the military departments:
- Used different methods to identify funding levels: In fiscal year 2017, the Army and Navy used direct costs, such as salary and training costs, to identify their funding levels, but the Army also included other associated costs. The Air Force used the prior year's funding level and adjusted it for inflation. The use of differing methods may not yield consistent and quality information for decision-making purposes.
- Did not consistently have supporting documentation: The Army data GAO received did not reconcile with data presented in the Corrosion Office Annual Reports to Congress for 5 of 8 fiscal years. The Navy data did not reconcile for 2 of 8 fiscal years, and there was no supporting documentation identifying how these figures were calculated. Air Force officials did not provide any figures or supporting documentation for 4 fiscal years, stating that these figures were not available. Without maintaining supporting documentation, DOD may not be able to ensure the accuracy of the reported information.
DOD's Corrosion Office has not issued guidance for identifying funding levels and maintaining documentation. Without such guidance, Congress will not receive quality information needed to effectively conduct its oversight activities.
DOD has taken several actions to maintain oversight of corrosion planning, such as developing sustainment and engineering documents that take corrosion considerations into account, for major weapon system programs. However, DOD lacks documentation of some of its oversight efforts. DOD Corrosion Office officials told GAO that since October 2016, they have reviewed corrosion planning documents during the earliest phases of the acquisition process for 11 major weapon system programs. However, DOD Corrosion Office officials could not provide supporting documentation of all their reviews or the actions taken by program offices to address the Corrosion Office's comments.
For example, Army and Air Force Corrosion Executives described some actions taken to oversee corrosion planning, such as providing comments on key sustainment and engineering documents. However, Army and Air Force Corrosion Executive Office officials had limited documentation of the oversight provided. In addition, guidance cited by Army and Air Force officials does not specifically describe how the Corrosion Executives will ensure that the processes for overseeing the adequacy of corrosion planning are being accomplished. Without the DOD Corrosion Office and the Army and Air Force Corrosion Executives taking steps to address these issues, DOD's actions to oversee its corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts may not be consistent or effectively addressing DOD requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study
A DOD-contracted study reported the cost impact of corrosion to DOD was $20.6 billion in fiscal year 2016. Corrosion can affect military readiness by taking critical weapon systems out of action and creating safety hazards. Corrosion can also lead facilities to experience structural failures and loss of capital investments.
Senate Armed Services Committee Report 115-125, accompanying a bill for the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, included a provision for GAO to review aspects of DOD's corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. In this report, among other things, GAO assesses the extent to which DOD has (1) consistently reported the funding levels needed to perform the Corrosion Executives' duties and (2) provided oversight of corrosion planning for major weapon system programs. GAO analyzed DOD guidance, funding (fiscal years 2010-2017) and corrosion planning information, and interviewed officials charged with overseeing DOD's corrosion efforts.
Recommendations
GAO is making five recommendations to DOD, including (1) issuing guidance for identifying and reviewing funding levels for performing Corrosion Executive duties, (2) ensuring that the Corrosion Office develops a process to maintain documentation of its reviews of corrosion planning, and (3) ensuring that Corrosion Executives establish guidance on reviewing the adequacy of corrosion planning. DOD concurred with all of GAO's recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Corrosion Office, in coordination with the military departments, issues guidance to require a standard process for identifying and documenting the rationale for the annual funding levels needed to perform the duties of each Corrosion Executive. The guidance should, at a minimum, identify and define the cost elements and the methods that may be used to estimate the funding levels and describe the supporting documentation that should be maintained. (Recommendation 1) |
Open
DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, the Corrosion Office issued an interim memo that identified specific cost elements for estimating the funding levels the Corrosion Executives need to perform their duties. However, this interim memo expired once the annual Congressional reporting requirement ended on December 30, 2020. The Corrosion Office intends to include a standardized process for identifying the annual funding levels needed by the Corrosion Executives to perform their duties in the next update of DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DoD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). As of July 2023, no updated DOD Instruction 5000.67 has been issued. According to DOD, the department intends to complete its actions by February 2024. We will keep this recommendation open and continue to monitor DOD's actions.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Corrosion Office documents, within existing or new guidance, its process for reviewing the Military Departments' Corrosion Executive Reports prior to submitting the Corrosion Office Annual Report to Congress, including a process to consistently maintain documentation of its reviews. (Recommendation 2) |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office had planned to develop and implement a standardized operating procedure for processing and documenting its review of the Corrosion Executive Reports. Instead, the Corrosion Office issued a process memo in August 2019. However, this memo did not fully meet the recommendation's intent. Additionally, DOD will take no further action since the annual Congressional reporting requirement ended on December 30, 2020. With the expiration of the Congressional reporting requirement, this recommendation is closed.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Corrosion Office develops a process to consistently maintain documentation of its reviews and evaluations of corrosion planning for major weapon system programs. These records, at a minimum, should show what comments were made by the Corrosion Office in its reviews and evaluations, and track the actions taken to resolve those comments. (Recommendation 3) |
Closed – Implemented
DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office planned to develop and maintain a process for documenting the Office's reviews, evaluations, and comments, and to track the weapon system programs' actions on corrosion planning. It planned to include this process in a new DOD manual on corrosion and to develop an internal data system for tracking purposes. As of January 2021, the Corrosion Office will no longer develop a DOD manual on corrosion. Instead, the Corrosion Office uses a "formal staffing comment matrix" to document what weapons system program's information was reviewed, who conducted the review, what comments were made, and the disposition of the comments. Also, the Corrosion Office is maintaining its review documentation on a shared network drive that is organized by weapons system platform. These actions meet the intent of this recommendation.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that its Corrosion Executive issues clear guidance establishing a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting the adequacy of corrosion planning and oversight efforts for major weapon systems throughout the systems' life cycle, including during the early phases of the acquisition life cycle, and maintain documentation of the oversight actions. (Recommendation 4) |
Closed – Implemented
DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Army has prepared two draft guidance documents to establish a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting corrosion planning and oversight efforts during the acquisition process. A DOD official estimates the guidance will be issued by summer 2022. We will keep this recommendation open and continue to monitor the Army's actions for issuing this guidance. In January 2022, the Army issued the following guidance documents: (1) Army Regulation 11 - 42, "Army Corrosion Prevention and Control Program" and (2) Department of the Army Pamphlet 11 - 42, "Army Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Procedures." Together, these guidance documents have established a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting the adequacy of corrosion planning and oversight efforts for major weapon systems throughout the systems' life cycle. This action meets the intent of the recommendation.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that its Corrosion Executive issues clear guidance establishing a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting the adequacy of corrosion planning and oversight efforts for major weapon systems throughout the systems' life cycle, including during the early phases of the acquisition life cycle, and maintain documentation of oversight actions. (Recommendation 5) |
Closed – Implemented
DOD concurred with this recommendation. In September 2020, the Air Force issued the "SAF/AQR Corrosion Planning Review Process for Acquisition Category (ACAT) I Major Weapon Systems" internal guidance document. It established a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting the adequacy of corrosion planning and oversight efforts for major weapon systems throughout the systems' life cycle. This action meets the intent of the recommendation.
|