United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

DEFENSE 

MANAGEMENT 

Additional Measures 

to Reduce Corrosion 

of Prepositioned 

Military Assets Could 

Achieve Cost Savings 

June 2006 

 

GAO-06-709 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT 

Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion 

of Prepositioned Military Assets Could 

Achieve Cost Savings 

Highlights of GAO-06-709, a report to 

congressional committees 

The military services store

prepositioned stocks of equipment 

and material on ships and land in 

locations around the world to

enable the rapid fielding of combatready forces. GAO’s prior work has 

shown that the readiness and 

safety of military equipment can be

severely degraded by corrosion and 

that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) spends billions of dollars 

annually to address corrosion. GAO 

was asked to review the impact of

corrosion on prepositioned assets. 

GAO’s specific objectives were to 

assess (1) the measures taken by 

the Army and the Marine Corps to 

reduce the impact of corrosion on

prepositioned assets and (2) the 

availability of corrosion-related 

data to the Army and the Marine

Corps to support corrosion

prevention and mitigation efforts 

for prepositioned assets. 

What GAO Recommends

To reduce the impact of corrosion 

on prepositioned assets and 

support additional corrosion

prevention and mitigation efforts,

GAO is recommending that the 

Army examine the feasibility of 

using temporary shelters to store 

land-based prepositioned assets

currently stored outdoors and that 

the Army and Marine Corps 

enhance their efforts to collect

corrosion-related data on

prepostioned assets. DOD 

concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the impact 

of corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use of humiditycontrolled storage facilities on ships and in some land-based locations, but a 

substantial portion of Army land-based prepositioned assets are stored 

outdoors and are left relatively unprotected from elements that contribute to 

corrosion. When equipment was drawn for military operations for Operation 

Iraqi Freedom during 2003, it was reported in good operating condition and 

not degraded by corrosion. Most of this equipment had been stored in 

humidity-controlled facilities. However, whereas all Marine Corps 

prepositioned assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities, the Army 

currently stores a significant amount of its land-based prepositioned assets 

outdoors. Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing 

prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because outdoor 

storage makes equipment more susceptible to corrosion and increases 

maintenance requirements and costs. One Army study showed that 

sheltering equipment in a humidity-controlled facility had a return on 

investment, at minimum, of $8 for every $1 invested. In South Korea, the 

Army has recently completed an intensive effort to repair prepositioned 

assets and correct some long-standing problems, but almost one-third of the 

assets continue to be stored outside. Similarly, as the Army reconstitutes its 

prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia, thousands of Army equipment 

items in Kuwait are stored outdoors in harsh environmental conditions. 

Army officials cited competing funding priorities and other factors as 

reasons for not providing indoor storage for all land-based prepositioned 

assets. However, temporary shelters may be a feasible option to address 

immediate storage needs. The Army has used temporary shelters and 

humidity-controlled storage for some prepositioned assets. 

Although the Army requires corrosion-related data collection for equipment 

items and Marine Corps officials believe them to be beneficial, data that 

could help reduce corrosion of prepositioned assets are not available. They 

are not available because the services consider this information to be a low 

priority and do not systematically collect it. Without these data, the services 

are not in a position to identify causes of corrosion, support efforts to more 

effectively reduce corrosion, and achieve long-term cost savings. Army and 

Marine Corps documents include information on the maintenance condition, 

actions, and costs for prepositioned equipment, but provide little data on 

corrosion. While cost data are limited, the services have estimated that about 

25 percent of overall equipment maintenance costs are corrosion related and 

perhaps as much as one-third of these costs could be reduced through more 

effective corrosion prevention and mitigation. An Army review of

maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned stock in South 

Korea found that $8.7 million (31 percent) of the estimated $28 million spent 

to restore this equipment was used to address corrosion. The Army has had 

previous success using corrosion data on non-prepositioned equipment 

programs to support corrosion prevention and mitigation. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-709.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William Solis at 

(202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5

Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Some Measures to Reduce 

Impact of Corrosion on Prepositioned Assets, but the Army 

Could Increase Its Use of Storage Facilities 6 

Lack of Corrosion Data Impairs Army and Marine Corps Ability to 

Support Prevention and Mitigation Efforts and Achieve Longterm Cost Savings 11 

Conclusions 15

Recommendations for Executive Action 15 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16 

Scope and Methodology 17 

Appendix I Military Services’ Prepositioning Programs 21 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 24 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 27 

Table 

Table 1: Description of Prepositioning Programs 21 

Figure 

Figure 1: Locations of Army (USAR), Marine Corps (USMC), 

 Navy (USN), and Air Force (USAF) Prepositioned Stocks 23 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page i GAO-06-709 Defense Management
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

June 14, 2006 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Jerry Lewis 

Chairman 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Army and the Marine Corps store prepositioned stocks of equipment 

and material on ships and land in locations around the world to enable the 

rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. These prepositioned stocks are a 

strategic asset for projecting military power and have been used 

extensively to support military operations in Southwest Asia. The Army 

stores sets of brigade equipment and supporting supplies at land sites in 

several countries as well as aboard prepositioning ships in the Pacific and 

Indian Oceans. Each of the Army’s prepositioned brigade sets is designed 

to support 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The Marine Corps stores equipment and 

supplies for its forces aboard squadrons of maritime prepositioning ships 

around the world as well as in Norway. Each of the Marine Corps’ three 

prepositioning squadrons is designed to support 13,000 Marines for up to 

30 days. We have previously raised concerns about the oversight and 

direction of military prepositioning programs.1

 For example, we have 

reported that the services lacked sufficient information on the inventory

level and maintenance condition of some prepositioned stocks. In 

addition, future plans for prepositioned assets are likely to be affected by

Defense Management

 1

GAO, Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of Prepositioning Programs

Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Plans, GAO-05-427 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 

2005). 

Page 1 GAO-06-709
the availability of funding, spare part and equipment stocks shortages, and 

the effects of transformation.2

Because prepositioned assets are critical to the readiness of combat 

forces, the military services must keep these items in good operating 

condition. Among the challenges the services face in keeping their 

equipment and supplies in good operating condition is corrosion caused 

by exposure to the environment.3

 Corrosion, if left unchecked, can 

degrade the readiness and safety of equipment and has been estimated to 

cost the Department of Defense (DOD) billions of dollars annually. The 

military services have established programs aimed at minimizing the 

impact of corrosion on their assets, and DOD has developed a long-term 

corrosion prevention and mitigation strategy. 

This report responds to a request in the Conference Report accompanying 

the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill that we review the impact 

of corrosion on prepositioned assets.4

 Our specific objectives were to 

assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the Marine Corps to reduce 

the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and (2) the availability of

corrosion-related data to the Army and the Marine Corps to support 

corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for prepositioned assets. 

Our review focused on prepositioned stocks managed by the Army and 

Marine Corps because these two services have the largest amounts of 

prepositioned equipment and provided most of the equipment used in 

current operations in Southwest Asia. To conduct our work, we reviewed 

the services’ policies, procedures, and practices for managing and 

maintaining prepositioned assets; analyzed various reports on these assets, 

including inspection and maintenance reports; visited selected 

maintenance facilities and prepositioning sites; and discussed corrosion 

issues with officials responsible for managing and maintaining 

prepositioned assets and for managing corrosion prevention and 

 2

Among recent changes, the Army is reconstituting prepositioning stocks in Southwest Asia 

and recently completed a significant effort to repair prepositioned items in South Korea. In 

addition, the Army plans to cut its afloat prepositioning capability in half (from two brigade

sets to one) and is planning to reduce the contractor workforce at Goose Creek, South 

Carolina, where maintenance is performed on the equipment. 

3

Corrosion is defined under 10 U.S.C. Section 2228 as the deterioration of a material or its 

properties caused by a reaction of that material with its chemical environment. 

4

H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-622, at 98. 

Page 2 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
mitigation programs. We determined that the data used were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from May 2005 through 

February 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. The scope and methodology section contains more detailed

information on the work we performed. 

The Army and the Marine Corps have taken some measures for reducing 

the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use 

of humidity-controlled storage facilities on ships and in some land-based 

locations, but a substantial portion of Army land-based prepositioned 

assets are stored outdoors and, therefore, are left relatively unprotected 

from moisture, sand, and other elements that contribute to corrosion. 

When prepositioned equipment was drawn by Army and Marine units for 

military operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2003, it was 

reported to be in good operating condition and was not degraded by 

corrosion. Most of this equipment had been stored in humidity-controlled 

facilities. However, the Army is currently storing a significant amount of 

its land-based prepositioned assets outdoors. In contrast, all Marine Corps 

prepositioned assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities both on 

ships and in caves in Norway. Under Army policy, the preferred method 

for storing prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because

outdoor storage makes equipment more susceptible to corrosion that 

degrades its condition and increases maintenance requirements and costs. 

One Army study showed that sheltering equipment in a humiditycontrolled facility had a return on investment, at minimum, of $8 for every 

$1 invested. In South Korea, the Army has recently completed an intensive 

effort to repair prepositioned assets and correct some long-standing 

problems, but almost one-third of prepositioned assets, including brigadeset and sustainment stocks, continue to be stored outside rather than in 

shelters. Similarly, as the Army reconstitutes its prepositioned equipment 

in Southwest Asia, thousands of Army prepositioned equipment items in 

Kuwait are stored outdoors in harsh environmental conditions, requiring 

more frequent maintenance than would be the case if shelters were used. 

The Army’s prepositioned afloat maintenance facility in South Carolina 

also lacks humidity-controlled storage for equipment awaiting upload to 

ships, and equipment is stored outside anywhere from 1 to 3 months, on 

average. Army officials cited a number of factors, primarily competing 

funding priorities, as reasons for not providing indoor storage for all landbased prepositioned assets. However, temporary shelters may be a

feasible option to address immediate storage needs. The Army has used 

temporary shelters and humidity-controlled storage for some 

prepositioned assets. 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Although Army regulations require corrosion-related data to be collected 

for equipment items and Marine Corps officials believe them to be 

beneficial, corrosion-related data that could enhance efforts to prevent 

and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets are not available. They are 

not available because the Army and Marine Corps consider this 

information to be a low priority and therefore do not systematically collect

it. Without these data, the services are not in a position to identify the 

underlying causes of corrosion, support efforts to more effectively prevent

and mitigate corrosion, and achieve long-term cost savings. Army and 

Marine Corps documents we reviewed include information on the 

maintenance condition, repair actions, and costs for prepositioned 

equipment, but provide little data regarding the extent and nature of 

corrosion found during the maintenance process. Army and Marine Corps 

officials said corrosion is routinely treated as part of the overall 

maintenance process and, given its low priority, corrosion-related data are 

not tracked separately. Although the Army and Marine Corps are not 

collecting data about the current costs to prevent and mitigate corrosion 

of prepositioned assets, the services have estimated that about 25 percent 

of overall maintenance costs are corrosion related and perhaps as much as 

one-third of these costs could be reduced through more effective 

corrosion prevention and mitigation. At our request, the Army conducted

a limited review of maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of 

prepositioned stock in South Korea and found that about $8.7 million (31 

percent) of the estimated $28 million spent to restore this equipment to 

serviceable condition was used to address corrosion-related problems. 

Information that would be obtained through the collection of corrosion 

data could support the Army’s and Marine Corps’ efforts to more 

effectively prevent and mitigate corrosion and achieve long-term cost 

savings. The Army has had previous success using corrosion data on nonprepositioning equipment programs to support corrosion prevention and 

mitigation actions. Two examples where such actions resulted in cost 

savings are the Army National Guard’s humidity-controlled shelter 

program and the Army’s Hellfire missile program. 

To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support 

additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, we are 

recommending that the Army examine the feasibility of using temporary 

shelters to store land-based prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors 

and that the Army and Marine Corps enhance their efforts to collect 

corrosion-related data on prepostioned assets. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, DOD concurred with our recommendations. DOD’s response is 

reprinted in appendix II.

Page 4 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Prepositioned equipment and supplies are strategic assets, along with 

sealift and airlift, for projecting military power. These assets include 

combat equipment, spare parts, and sustainment supplies that are stored 

on ships and on land in locations around the world to enable the rapid 

fielding of combat-ready forces. (App. I provides an overview of the 

military services’ prepositioned assets and their locations.) DOD has made

significant investments in its military prepositioning programs, totaling 

several billion dollars in annual acquisition costs. In addition, the services

have collectively used an average of over $1 billion each year to operate 

and maintain these assets. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the Army 

spent $386.1 million for storage and maintenance of prepositioned assets, 

including $76.5 million for assets in South Korea and $38.3 million for 

assets in Southwest Asia. Prepositioned assets have been used extensively 

to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marine Corps used 

equipment from two of its three prepositioned squadrons to support these 

operations. The Army used nearly all of its prepositioned ship stocks and

land-based stocks in Kuwait and Qatar, in addition to drawing some 

equipment from Europe. 

Background 

Military equipment and infrastructure are often located in corrosive 

environments that increase the deterioration of assets and shorten their 

useful life. The extensive and long-term deployments of U.S. troops in 

Southwest Asia are likely to magnify the effects of corrosion on military 

equipment, including prepositioned assets, because of the region’s harsh 

operating environment. Higher rates of corrosion result in increased 

repairs and replacements, drive up costs, and take critical systems out of 

action, reducing mission readiness. Corrosion can also reduce the safety

of equipment items. Although reliable cost data are not available, 

estimates of corrosion costs DOD-wide have ranged from $10 billion to 

$20 billion annually. We have found in our prior work that DOD and the 

military services did not have an effective management approach to 

mitigate and prevent corrosion.5

 We recommended that DOD develop a 

departmentwide strategic plan with clearly defined goals, measurable 

outcome-oriented objectives, and performance measures. DOD concurred 

and in December 2003 issued its corrosion strategy.6

 5

GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase

Readiness, GAO-03-753 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2003). 

6

Office of the Secretary of Defense, Long-Term Strategy to Reduce Corrosion and the 

Effects of Corrosion on the Military Equipment and Infrastructure of the Department of 

Defense (December 2003). 

Page 5 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
According to DOD’s corrosion strategy, knowing the costs of corrosion is 

essential to adequately implementing the strategy, and having corrosion 

data helps the department learn what works so it can be more effective in

reducing corrosion. In addition, the Defense Science Board in 2004 stated 

that “accurate and objective corrosion data collection and new incentives

to reward life-cycle cost reduction efforts must be implemented” as part of

an effective corrosion control program and that such data are critical “not

only to understand the depth of the problem, but to enable a quantitative 

corrosion mitigation strategy, which is founded on fact.” 7

The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the 

impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, but the Army could increase 

its use of storage facilities for land-based assets. Prepositioned equipment

drawn by Army and Marine Corps units for military operations in Iraq 

during 2003 had mostly been stored in humidity-controlled facilities and 

was reported to be in good operating condition and was not degraded by

corrosion. The primary measure taken to reduce corrosion and achieve 

this good operating condition was the use of humidity-controlled storage 

facilities. However, we identified several locations where the Army is 

currently storing a substantial portion of its prepositioned equipment 

outdoors. Temporary shelters may be a feasible option to address 

immediate storage needs. 

When prepositioned equipment was drawn by Army and Marine Corps 

units in military operations in Iraq during 2003, it was reported to be in 

good working condition and was not degraded by corrosion. Army 

officials from the 3rd Infantry Division have stated that with the exception 

of rubber seals on some vehicles, prepositioned equipment entering 

Southwest Asia was in good shape and had minimal, if any, corrosion. 

These officials said they did not experience any corrosion that affected 

their ability to perform operations. Similarly, officials with the 1st and 2nd 

Marine Expeditionary Forces who used or observed the use of 

prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia found it was in a high state of

readiness and could not recall any instance where corrosion affected their 

ability to perform operations. Furthermore, officials with the 3rd Marine 

Army and Marine 

Corps Have Taken 

Some Measures to 

Reduce Impact of 

Corrosion on 

Prepositioned Assets, 

but the Army Could 

Increase Its Use of 

Storage Facilities 

Prepositioned Equipment 

Deployed for Military 

Operations Was Reported 

to Be in Good Operating 

Condition 

 7

Defense Science Board, Report on Corrosion Control (October 2004). 

Page 6 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Expeditionary Force said the equipment on the prepositioning ship USNS

Lummus that was used in a 2004 training exercise in South Korea was 

generally in the same good operating condition it was when first uploaded 

about 2 years previously. These officials stated that subsequent 

maintenance in August 2005 confirmed that the equipment continued to be 

in good operating condition based on a detailed examination of about 200 

pieces of this equipment. They told us that with the exception of minor 

hydraulic leaks and o-ring deterioration, the equipment was generally free

of corrosion problems. 

Humidity-Controlled 

Facilities Have Helped 

Reduce Corrosion 

The primary measure to reduce corrosion of Army and Marine Corps 

prepositioned assets has been the use of humidity-controlled storage 

facilities. Most of the prepositioned equipment drawn for military 

operations in Iraq during 2003 had been stored, either afloat or on land, in

such facilities. Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing 

prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because such 

storage is considered highly effective in preserving equipment. 

Maintaining low humidity levels reduces corrosion because moisture is a 

primary cause of corrosion. Similarly, Marine Corps policies indicate that 

equipment should be sheltered in climate-controlled facilities to the 

greatest extent possible. Army and Marine Corps officials told us that the 

use of humidity-controlled facilities is effective at minimizing equipment 

corrosion and maintaining high readiness levels.8

 Army equipment on 

prepositioning ships is stored below deck in humidity-controlled cargo

space. In addition, the Army stores some of its land-based prepositioned 

equipment in humidity-controlled warehouses. Marine Corps 

prepositioned assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities either on 

ships or in caves in Norway. Humidity levels, particularly on ships, are 

required under Army and Marine Corps guidelines to stay within a specific 

range on a continuous basis and are closely monitored. 

In addition to humidity-controlled storage, the Army and Marine Corps 

have taken other measures intended to help reduce the impact of 

corrosion on prepositioned assets. Army and Marine Corps policies 

require that repaired equipment be restored to good condition before 

being placed in prepositioned status. Specifically, Army maintenance 

 8

With regard to readiness, for example, on October 24, 2005, the Army reported high

readiness levels for prepositioned assets stored on ships in Army Strategic Flotilla II (Diego 

Garcia). Similarly, as of January 31, 2006, the Marine Corps reported high readiness levels

for equipment stored on its prepositioning ships. 

Page 7 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
regulations require prepositioned equipment to be maintained at “10/20” 

standards,9

 the highest standard the Army has for equipment maintenance. 

Army maintenance regulations also provide for the use of lubricants and

preservatives, as well as regular inspections. Marine Corps policy 

indicates that all equipment generally will be in “Code A” condition at the 

time it is placed in storage.10 Code A means the equipment is serviceable

without any limitation or restriction. Marine Corps officials told us 

equipment meeting this standard would have little to no corrosion. Marine 

Corps maintenance guidance for prepositioned equipment consists of a 

variety of corrosion prevention and mitigation measures, including visual 

inspections for leaks, corrosion removal and recoating, and preservation.

11 

For equipment stored on the prepositioned ships, inspections are 

conducted on a periodic basis. Both Army and Marine Corps officials said

corrosion is routinely treated as part of the maintenance process for 

restoring equipment to meet standards.12

Army Is Storing a Sizeable 

Portion of Its Land-Based 

Prepositioned Assets 

Outdoors

We identified several locations where the Army is storing a significant 

amount of land-based prepositioned assets outdoors without adequate 

sheltering. Specifically, we found equipment being stored outdoors at 

Camp Carroll, South Korea; Camp Arifjan, Kuwait; and Goose Creek, 

South Carolina. At these locations, assets are left relatively unprotected 

from moisture, sand, and other elements that contribute to corrosion. 

Army officials noted that unprotected equipment corrodes faster and will 

more quickly fall below required maintenance condition standards. At 

Camp Carroll in South Korea, about 30 percent of the Army’s Heavy 

Brigade Combat Team equipment—mostly sustainment stock—is stored 

 9

Army Technical Manual 38-470. 10/20 refers to the suffix found on Army technical manuals 

pertaining to vehicle and equipment maintenance practices. 

10Marine Corps Headquarters, Prepositioning Programs Handbook (March 2005). 

11The Marine Corps’ Prepositioning Programs Handbook describes the process used to 

maintain prepositioned equipment and supplies that are stored by subjecting them to

periodic quality assurance inspections, replacement or rotation, and logistic support to

maintain the highest state of combat readiness. See also Corrosion Control Procedures;

Depot Maintenance Activities for Marine Corps Equipment (TM-3080-50); 

Organizational Corrosion Prevention and Control Procedure for USMC Equipment (TM4795-12/1); and U.S. Marine Corps Maritime Prepositioning Force Operations, Marine 

Corps Warfighting Publication 3-32/Navy Tactics, Technicians, and Procedures 3-02.3. 

12We visited maintenance facilities and spoke with personnel responsible for equipment

maintenance, including treatment for corrosion, but we did not review how effective the 

services were in meeting maintenance standards. 

Page 8 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
outdoors in an often damp and humid region. The remaining equipment is

stored in humidity-controlled facilities. Army officials told us that the 

equipment had been poorly maintained and, as a result, experienced many

significant defects and readiness shortfalls, with corrosion being one of 

the primary problems.13 These officials said some of the equipment 

corroded faster and more severely because of being stored outside and, as

a result, the Army incurred additional maintenance costs. Army officials in 

South Korea noted that it costs more to maintain equipment that is stored 

outside in part because the equipment needs to be inspected three times 

more often than equipment in humidity-controlled storage. Large amounts 

of Army prepositioned equipment are also stored outside in Kuwait where, 

according to DOD and Army officials, the environment is highly corrosive 

because of the humid climate, sand with high salinity levels, and strong 

winds. As of April 2006, the Army was storing outside nearly all of its 

prepositioned assets (numbering about 11,000 items) in Southwest Asia.14 

At the Army’s prepositioning afloat facility in Goose Creek, South 

Carolina, equipment is stored outside during the time it is not undergoing 

maintenance because of a lack of storage facilities. The amount of time 

equipment is stored outside ranges, on average, from 1 month to more 

than 3 months. In some cases, equipment is stored outside well over 3 

months. For example, 44 M1A1 tanks and 10 fuel tankers sat outdoors for 

more than a year after undergoing maintenance and experienced a total of

$1.2 million in corrosion-related damage. Army officials said that 

prolonged periods of outdoor storage as happened in this case rarely 

occur, but that some period of outdoor storage is expected for equipment 

waiting upload. 

Army officials acknowledged having an immediate need for additional 

sheltering, preferably with humidity control capability, for prepositioned 

equipment located in South Korea, Kuwait, and South Carolina. However,

under current construction plans, additional storage facilities will not be 

available at all three sites until 2012 at the earliest. In South Korea and 

 13Until recently, the equipment located in South Korea suffered from serious maintenance 

deficiencies and readiness shortfalls because of long-standing management problems. The 

Army implemented an intense effort to address these deficiencies and reported that all 

equipment was restored to required maintenance standards by the end of fiscal year 2005.

See GAO, Defense Logistics: Better Planning and Accountability Needed to Ensure

Mission Capability of Army Prepositioned Stocks in South Korea, GAO-05-751 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2005). 

14These data, in addition to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, include smaller prepositioning sites in 

Qatar and Afghanistan. 

Page 9 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Kuwait, Army officials said that even with the additional planned storage 

facilities, substantial amounts of equipment will still be stored outdoors. 

For example, officials estimated about 20 percent of equipment in Kuwait 

will remain outside. Officials cited competing funding priorities as the 

primary reason for not providing indoor storage for all land-based 

prepositioned assets. Army officials also cited uncertainties regarding the

number and type of equipment and length of time it is stored, which make 

it difficult to accurately define storage requirements and justify funding for 

construction of additional storage facilities. In South Korea, Army officials 

told us the lack of available land limits their ability to construct new, or 

expand existing, facilities. These officials also said that estimating storage 

needs is difficult because of uncertainties regarding the consolidation and 

reconfiguration of U.S. Forces Korea facilities related to future force 

restructuring. Army prepositioning afloat officials said that the Goose 

Creek facility primarily is a maintenance facility and is not meant for the 

storage of equipment, which makes it difficult to justify the building of 

new storage space. 

Although building additional storage will require Army investment, the use 

of humidity-controlled storage in general has been shown to provide a 

substantial return on investment. According to a study by the Army Cost 

and Economic Analysis Center, sheltering Army National Guard equipment 

in a humidity-controlled facility had a potential return on investment of a 

minimum of $8 for every $1 invested. The Army National Guard also 

estimates that it will have achieved a total of over $1.2 billion in cost 

savings by fiscal year 2010. Most of the projected savings is based on 

having to perform less maintenance on equipment that is being preserved 

better in humidity-controlled facilities. The humidity-controlled sheltering 

program includes combat vehicles, trailers, radar systems, and other 

equipment located at Guard facilities in 45 states and U.S. territories. 

According to Army storage and maintenance guidelines, storage of 

equipment in facilities without humidity control—particularly in open 

storage without protection—not only invites greater and more rapid 

deterioration because of corrosion but requires increased surveillance, 

inspections, and maintenance. For example, whereas combat vehicles in 

humidity-controlled facilities need to be exercised and road tested every

30 months, vehicles stored without humidity control require exercising 

every 12 months. One of the benefits of humidity control is avoiding or at 

least minimizing these increased maintenance requirements. 

Page 10 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Temporary Shelters May 

Be a Feasible Option 

Given the competing funding priorities and other constraints cited by 

Army officials in providing additional storage facilities for prepositioned 

equipment, temporary shelters may be a feasible option to address 

immediate storage needs. Temporary shelters are available in a range of 

sizes, materials, and features, including humidity control. For example, 

“K-SPAN” temporary shelters are steel structures constructed on-site and 

set over a concrete foundation. These shelters may be dismantled, 

packaged, and relocated. Army officials told us that temporary shelters 

are used primarily in situations where immediate storage is required but 

may be durable enough to last for several years. Furthermore, they can be

acquired faster than permanent facilities, which may take several years to 

plan, fund, and build. The military services have made prior use of 

temporary shelters in several locations, for both prepositioned and nonprepositioned equipment. For example, the Marine Corps uses temporary 

humidity-controlled facilities in Florida to store some of its prepositioned 

assets awaiting maintenance and upload to ships. In addition, the Army 

has stored prepositioned equipment in temporary shelters located in 

Livorno, Italy, and Camp Carroll, South Korea. The Marine Corps has also 

used temporary shelters to store non-prepositioned equipment in Hawaii. 

The lack of available corrosion data impairs the ability of the Army and 

Marine Corps to achieve long-term costs savings through corrosion 

prevention and mitigation efforts. The Army and Marine Corps consider 

collection of corrosion data on prepositioned assets to be a low priority 

and, consequently, do not systematically collect them. These data could 

be used to support additional prevention and mitigation efforts that 

achieve long-term cost savings, similar to the Army’s previous success 

using corrosion data regarding non-prepositioning programs. 

Corrosion-related data that could enhance efforts to prevent and mitigate 

corrosion of prepositioned assets is unavailable because the Army and 

Marine Corps consider collection of this information to be a low priority 

and, consequently, do not systematically collect it. Army regulations 

require units to collect corrosion-related data as part of their equipment 

Lack of Corrosion 

Data Impairs Army 

and Marine Corps 

Ability to Support 

Prevention and 

Mitigation Efforts and 

Achieve Long-term 

Cost Savings 

Army and Marine Corps 

Are Not Collecting 

Corrosion Data on 

Prepositioned Assets 

Page 11 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
maintenance and storage programs, while the Marine Corps generally

lacks requirements for collection of corrosion-related data.

15 For example, 

the Army’s Corrosion Prevention and Control Program regulation includes 

a requirement for a corrosion-related survey of all divisions and separate

combat brigades to be conducted at least every 4 years.16 In addition, 

Army policy on reporting equipment quality deficiencies includes a 

requirement to report problems that are corrosion related.17 The Marine 

Corps, on the other hand, does not require the collection of corrosion 

information for all equipment, but believes it to be beneficial. The mission 

of the Marine Corps’ Corrosion Prevention and Control Program is to 

reduce maintenance requirements and costs associated with corrosion, 

and the program seeks to identify and assess current and projected 

corrosion problems for all tactical ground and ground support equipment.

Marine Corps officials said that the desire for the collection of corrosion 

information applies to all Marine Corps activities, including prepositioning 

programs, but acknowledge that data are not collected on prepositioned 

assets because they have a low priority. Corrosion data could be used to 

help identify underlying causes of maintenance problems and obtain a 

better understanding of the costs of corrosion and the extent it affects 

readiness. 

Despite Army corrosion data collection requirements and the

establishment of corrosion prevention and control programs in the Army 

and Marine Corps, we found that information about corrosion of 

prepositioned assets is generally lacking in both services. We reviewed a 

wide range of reports and other documentation on Army and Marine Corps 

prepositioned equipment and found these to be almost devoid of 

corrosion-related data. For example, we examined information on the 

 15Marine Corps mishap and safety recordkeeping and reporting guidance requires the 

collection and reporting of mishap causes, including some information on corrosion, if 

relevant. For example, when a mishap occurs, corrosion problems, such as corroded parts, 

corrosion control inadequacies or preservation failures, should be listed in the mishap 

report if they were causes of the mishap. OPNAVINST 5102.1D. 

16According to Army Regulation 750-59, these surveys are to include an assessment of the 

condition of equipment, to include prepositioned material; an evaluation of program

management and procedures; and the development of corrective action plans. 

17According to Department of the Army Pamphlet 738-750, Functional Users Manual for 

The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS), quality deficiencies, such as 

those caused by corrosion, are to be reported when the defect may cause death, injury, or 

severe illness; would cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; or critically restricts 

combat readiness capabilities.

Page 12 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
maintenance condition and repair actions for prepositioned equipment 

from the Army Maintenance Management System, but this system did not 

contain information regarding the extent and nature of equipment 

corrosion. Likewise, the cost data on prepositioned equipment contained

in the Marine Corps’ Standard Accounting, Budgeting and Reporting 

System, which contains total maintenance and repair costs for all 

prepositioned equipment, also did not include information specifically on 

corrosion costs. We also asked the Army and Marine Corps for 

information regarding the impact of corrosion on maintenance costs, 

equipment deficiencies, inventory levels, and readiness rates. In almost 

every instance, this corrosion information was not available. As we have 

previously reported, DOD and the military services generally have a 

limited amount of corrosion data related to cost estimates, readiness, and

safety data.18

According to Army and Marine Corps officials, corrosion information on 

prepositioned assets is unavailable primarily because it has low priority. 

Although Army guidance for documenting equipment maintenance 

includes detailed instructions for reporting corrosion issues, Army 

officials said most of those responsible for documenting the maintenance 

action do not want to take the extra time to include corrosion information 

because they see it as having minimal value and have no incentive to 

collect it. Similarly, Marine Corps officials stated that there is minimal 

incentive to capture and report corrosion costs for prepositioned 

equipment because maintenance costs are typically managed at more 

general levels, such as the costs to repair or replace a piece of equipment. 

Officials from both the Army and the Marine Corps said that corrosion is 

routinely treated as part of the overall maintenance process, and 

corrosion-related data are not tracked separately. For example, Army 

officials at Camp Carroll, South Korea, told us that corrosion observed on

the engine blocks in 5-ton trucks would be repaired during maintenance 

performed on the entire engine and would not be noted in the 

maintenance logs. Instead, documentation of the maintenance actions 

would include a description of the equipment or component and why it 

was not functional—such as being broken or cracked—but would not 

include the reason for the repair, such as corrosion. According to Marine

Corps officials, corrosion information has value but not enough to be 

included with more critical information, such as the amount of equipment

in the inventory and amount in serviceable condition. 

 18GAO-03-753. 

Page 13 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Although the Army and Marine Corps are not collecting data about the 

current costs to prevent and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets, 

the military services have estimated that at least 25 percent of overall 

maintenance costs are corrosion related and that as much as one-third of

these costs could be reduced through more effective corrosion prevention

and mitigation. Army and Marine Corps officials told us that this estimate 

applies to both prepositioned and non-prepositioned assets because 

corrosion affects both types of equipment in similar ways. Because of the

lack of available cost data, the Army, at our request, conducted a limited 

review of maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned 

stock in South Korea. The Army determined that about $8.7 million (31 

percent) of the estimated $28 million spent to restore this equipment to 

serviceable condition was used to address corrosion-related problems. As 

another indication of corrosion costs, Marine Corps officials estimated 

that corrosion costs make up at least 50 percent of the $110,000 needed, 

on average, to repair motorized lighterage19 prepositioned equipment. 

Corrosion Data Could Be 

Used to Support Additional 

Prevention and Mitigation 

Efforts That Achieve Longterm Cost Savings 

The additional information that would be obtained through the collection 

of corrosion data could support the Army’s and Marine Corps’ efforts to 

more effectively prevent and mitigate corrosion and achieve long-term 

cost savings, which could be significant given the resources the military 

services devote each year to addressing corrosion-related problems. 

Corrosion prevention measures may reduce the amount of maintenance 

needed, thereby extending the availability of equipment items over their 

life cycle. The Army has had previous success using corrosion data 

regarding non-prepositioning programs to support corrosion prevention 

and mitigation efforts that achieved long-term cost savings. For example, 

the Army National Guard began the initial phase of a humidity-controlled 

storage program for its vehicles and equipment in 1994. Guard officials 

told us that they collected and analyzed an extensive amount of 

information on corrosion and its cost impacts on selected pieces of 

equipment and estimated that a significant amount of corrosion-related 

costs could be avoided by using humidity-controlled storage facilities. 

Program officials currently estimate that the sheltering and preservation 

effort will save a total of about $1.2 billion through fiscal year 2010, which 

 19Lighterage is small craft—powered and nonpowered—designed to transport cargo or 

personnel from ship to shore. Lighterage includes amphibious vehicles, landing craft,

causeways, and barges. Marine Corps officials estimate that at least 50 percent of the

$35,000 needed to repair the average nonmotorized lighterage equipment is used to address 

corrosion-related damage. 

Page 14 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
reflects a 9 to 1 return on investment. Army officials cited similar results 

after collecting corrosion data on Hellfire missile launchers. The types and

areas of the launchers that were most prone to corrosion—such as missile 

safety/arming switches—were identified and documented. Based on this 

research, maintenance technicians knew better to look for corrosion and 

how to control it before it worsened. The Army Missile Command’s 

tactical missile program executive office attributed a large portion of its 

$3.2 billion overall long-term life cycle savings to the Hellfire corrosion 

prevention measures. Collection of corrosion data for prepositioned 

equipment could better enable the Army and Marine Corps to support 

similar corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts in their prepositioning 

programs. 

Effectively addressing corrosion on prepositioned stocks of equipment 

can enable the services to achieve significant cost savings and increase 

readiness and safety for rapidly fielding combat-ready forces around the 

world. Although the Army and Marine Corps have taken measures to 

reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, there are 

immediate opportunities for taking additional action. Sheltering assets—

especially sheltering in humidity-controlled facilities—has been shown to 

be a key anticorrosion practice, yet large amounts of Army land-based 

prepositioned assets are stored outdoors without adequate sheltering. 

This practice is wasteful given the large investment in acquiring the 

equipment and the annual costs of maintaining it. Furthermore, while the 

Army and Marine Corps do not collect corrosion data for prepositioned 

equipment, the collection of such data could provide additional 

information to identify the underlying causes of maintenance problems 

and develop solutions to address these problems. Without such data, the 

services may lack the incentive to support efforts to more effectively 

prevent and mitigate corrosion and achieve long-term cost savings. Until 

the Army and Marine Corps take additional actions to prevent corrosion, 

such as implementing use of temporary shelters to the greatest extent 

feasible and collecting corrosion-related data, prepositioned equipment 

stored outdoors will continue to corrode at an accelerated pace and the 

services will continue to incur unnecessary costs for maintaining 

equipment and repairing corrosion damage. 

To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support 

additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions: 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 15 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
• Direct the Secretary of the Army to examine the feasibility of using 

temporary shelters, including humidity-controlled facilities, to store 

land-based prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors, and if 

such use is determined to be feasible, to take appropriate actions to 

implement the use of shelters to the maximum extent possible. 

• Direct the Secretary of the Army to collect corrosion-related data, as 

required in existing Army regulations, and use these data to support 

additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. 

• Direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to require the collection 

of corrosion-related data and use these data to support additional 

corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to specify 

the department’s planned actions, milestones, and resources for 

completing an Army feasibility study on the use of temporary shelters to 

store land-based prepositioned assets and for collecting and using Army 

and Marine Corps corrosion-related data to support additional corrosion 

prevention and mitigation efforts. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 

recommendations that the Army consider the feasibility of using 

temporary shelters, including humidity-controlled facilities, to store landbased prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors and that the Army 

and Marine Corps collect and use corrosion-related data to support 

additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. However, DOD did 

not provide specific information on planned actions, milestones, and 

resources for implementing the recommendations. With respect to the

Marine Corps, DOD stated that collection of adequate data is not a matter 

of being a low priority but a funding issue. As noted in our report, we were 

told by Marine Corps officials that collection of these data has been a low 

priority. We believe that funding and priorities should be aligned to the 

greatest extent possible to provide greater assurance that the department’s 

resources are being used prudently. As stated in our report, DOD can 

achieve long-term cost savings by investing in additional corrosion 

prevention and mitigation efforts. In addition, investments in corrosion 

prevention measures may reduce the amount of maintenance needed on 

equipment items, thereby extending the availability of equipment items 

over their life cycle. On the basis of our evaluation of DOD’s comments, 

we have added a recommendation that DOD specify actions, milestones, 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 16 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
and resources for implementing our recommendations to the Army and 

the Marine Corps. 

DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. 

We focused our review on the prepositioned assets managed by the Army 

and Marine Corps because these two services have the majority of the 

military’s prepositioned assets, and these services provided most of the 

equipment used in current operations in Southeast Asia. 

Scope and 

Methodology 

To assess the measures taken by the Army and Marine Corps to reduce the 

impact that corrosion has on prepositioned assets, we met with DOD and 

service command officials responsible for managing and maintaining 

prepositioned assets; obtained their assessments and perspectives on 

corrosion prevention and mitigation programs and strategies; and obtained 

and reviewed DOD and service policies, procedures, and practices, 

including technical orders and manuals, for managing and maintaining 

prepositioned assets. We met with DOD officials involved with developing 

DOD’s long-term strategy to prevent and control corrosion. We also 

discussed additional actions that could be taken to further prevent and

mitigate corrosion. In addition, we visited selected prepositioning 

locations and maintenance facilities, including the Army’s facilities in 

Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Camp Carroll, South Korea, and the 

Marine Corps Logistics Command in Albany, Georgia, and Blount Island 

Command in Jacksonville, Florida. 

To assess the availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and Marine 

Corps to support corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for 

prepositioned assets, we met with DOD and service command officials 

responsible for managing and maintaining prepositioned assets, and 

obtained and reviewed DOD and military service policies and procedures 

for collecting and reporting maintenance costs and related equipment 

material condition information. We obtained and analyzed various cost 

and maintenance reports on these assets, including inspection and 

maintenance logs, databases and assessments, and after-action reports. In 

particular, we discussed the barriers that exist to identifying and 

quantifying the impact of corrosion on prepostioned assets’ maintenance 

costs and material condition, and the metrics and related information 

systems needed to better collect, track, report, and manage efforts to 

prevent and mitigate corrosion as well as quantify the related funding 

requirements to address this issue. 

Page 17 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
We interviewed officials and obtained documentation at the following 

locations:20

• Office of the Secretary of Defense 

• Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office 

• Joint Chiefs of Staff 

• Director of Logistics 

• Army 

• Headquarters, Department of the Army 

• U.S. Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 

• Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Michigan, 

and Rock Island, Illinois

• U.S. Army Field Support Command, Rock Island, Illinois 

• U.S. III Army Corps, Fort Hood, Texas 

• U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Afloat, Goose Creek, South 

Carolina 

• U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth U.S. Army, Yongsan Garrison, South 

Korea 

• U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Far East, Camp Carroll, 

Waegwan, South Korea 

• Materiel Support Center Korea, Camp Carroll, Waegwan, South 

Korea 

• 19th Theater Support Command, Camp Walker, Daegu, South Korea 

• U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii 

• Marine Corps 

• U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters 

• U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, Hawaii 

• I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California 

• II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejune, North Carolina 

• III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan 

• Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia 

• Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Georgia 

 20Unless otherwise noted, the officials listed have their offices in the Pentagon or at

locations in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. 

Page 18 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
• Blount Island Command, Jacksonville, Florida 

• Office of the Inspector General of the Marine Corps 

• Navy 

• Bureau of Medicine and Surgery 

• Naval Facilities Engineering Command

• CNA Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia 

• U.S. Navy Inspector General 

• Naval Air Systems Command, Office of the Inspector General, 

Patuxent River, Maryland

• Naval Audit Service 

• Naval Medical Logistics Command, Fort Detrick, Maryland 

• Navy Expeditionary Medical Command, Cheatham Annex, 

Williamsburg, Virginia 

• Military Sealift Command 

• Air Force 

• Headquarters, Seventh Air Force, South Korea 

• Unified Commands 

• United States Pacific Command 

• United States Forces Korea 

We conducted our work from May 2005 through February 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We 

reviewed available data for inconsistencies and discussed the data with 

DOD and service officials. We determined that the data used for our 

review were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 

Secretary of the Army, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will 

also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report 

is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 19 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
If you or your staffs have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

8365. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix III. 

William M. Solis, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 20 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix I: Military Services’ Prepositioning

Programs 

The military services have prepositioning programs to store combat or 

support equipment and supplies near areas with a high potential for 

conflict and to speed response times and reduce the strain on other 

mobility assets. 

The Army’s program involves three primary categories of stocks: combat 

brigade sets, operational projects, and war reserve sustainment stocks 

stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships around the world. The 

Marine Corps also prepositions equipment and supplies aboard

prepositioning ships and at land sites in Norway. The Navy’s 

prepositioning efforts are comparatively small, used mainly to support the 

Marine Corps’ prepositioning program and deploying forces. The Navy 

prepositions equipment and supplies at land sites and aboard the maritime 

prepositioning ships. The Air Force prepositions stocks of war reserve 

equipment and supplies to meet initial contingency requirements and to 

sustain early deploying forces. The Air Force’s prepositioned war reserve 

stocks include bare base sets; vehicles; munitions; and a variety of 

consumable supplies, such as rations, fuel, support equipment, aircraft 

accessories, and medical supplies. The services’ prepositioning programs 

are briefly described in table 1. 

Table 1: Description of Prepositioning Programs

Service Types of stocks Description

Combat brigade sets • Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships 

• Sets are designed to support 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers 

• Heavy weaponry, such as tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles 

• Support equipment, such as trucks and High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles

• Spare parts and other sustainment stocks to support the early stages of a conflict 

Sustainment stocks • Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships 

• Replacement equipment for losses in early stages of operations or until resupply is 

established 

• Includes major end items, such as aircraft engines and tracked vehicles 

• Secondary items, such as meals, clothing, petroleum supplies, construction materials, 

ammunition, medical materials, and repair parts 

Army 

Operational project 

stocks 

• Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships 

• Authorized material above unit authorizations designed to support Army operations or 

contingencies 

• Equipment and supplies for special operations forces, bare base sets, petroleum and 

water distribution, mortuary operations, and prisoner-of-war operations 

Appendix I: Military Services’ Prepositioning 

Programs 

Page 21 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix I: Military Services’ Prepositioning

Programs 

Service Types of stocks Description

Maritime 

prepositioning force 

• Consists of 16 prepositioning ships organized into three squadrons 

• Each squadron supports about 15,000 Marines for up to 30 days 

• Includes combat systems, communications systems, construction equipment, 

munitions, medical supplies, and sustainment stocks 

Prepositioning 

program- Norway 

• Several land sites located in central Norway 

• Designed to support 13,000 Marines for up to 30 days 

• Includes vehicles, weapons, munitions, rations, and other equipment that will be used

to support any geographic combatant command 

Navy/Marine Corps 

Navy prepositioned 

assets 

• Assets are stored aboard maritime prepositioning ships and at land sites 

• Equipment to offload prepositioning ships, including material handling equipment, 

ramps and barges, landing and amphibious craft, and bulk fuel 

• Construction equipment, such as cranes, forklifts, trucks, and tractor trailers 

• Includes six 500-bed fleet hospitalsa 

Bare base sets • Base operating support equipment used to house forces, and equipment and supplies 

needed to support airfield operations 

Vehicles • Includes trucks, buses, and High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles 

Air Force 

Other support 

equipment and

supplies 

• Includes materiel handling equipment, rations, fuel, fuel support equipment, aircraft 

accessories, and medical supplies at land sites and munitions aboard four 

prepositioning ships 

Source: GAO.

Notes: In addition to the services’ programs, the Defense Logistics Agency prepositions food and bulk

fuel to support a range of contingency operations and training exercises. The Special Operations

Command relies on the military services to preposition common support items for its forces, such as

base support items and vehicles.

a

The Navy is in the process of transitioning from 500-bed fleet hospitals to smaller modular units. 

The military services store these stocks of equipment and supplies at 

several land sites and aboard prepositioning ships around the world. Most 

of the military services store equipment and supplies in Southwest Asia, 

the Pacific theater, Europe, and aboard prepositioning ships. Figure 1 

shows the major locations of prepositioned stocks. 

Page 22 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix I: Military Services’ Prepositioning

Programs 

Figure 1: Locations of Army (USAR), Marine Corps (USMC), Navy (USN), and Air Force (USAF) Prepositioned Stocks 

Norway

USM

USN

USAF

Luxemburg

USAF

Bahrain

USN

USAF

Japan

USN

USAF

South Korea

USN

USAR

USAF Guam/Saipan

USM

USN

USAF

USAR

Diego Garcia

USMC

USN

USAF

USAR

Afloat

Mediterranean

USMC

USN

USAF

Germany

USAF

Italy

USAR

Kuwait

USAR

USAF

Oman

USAF

Qatar

USAF

Guam

USAF

Norway

USM

USN

USAF

Luxemburg

USAF

Bahrain

USN

USAF

Japan

USN

USAF

South Korea

USN

USAR

USAF Guam/Saipan

USM

USN

USAF

USAR

Diego Garcia

USMC

USN

USAF

USAR

Afloat

Mediterranean

USMC

USN

USAF

Germany

USAF

Italy

USAR

Kuwait

USAR

USAF

Oman

USAF

Qatar

USAF

Guam

USAF

Ashore

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: DOD also prepositions smaller stocks of equipment and supplies at other locations not 

identified on this map.

Page 23 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

of Defense 

Page 24 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Now on p.18.

Now on p.18.

Now on p. 18. 

Page 25 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 26 GAO-06-709 Defense Management
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 27 GAO-06-709

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

William M. Solis (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling, Assistant 

Director; Larry Bridges; Renee Brown; Lisa Canini; Amy Sheller; Allen 

Westheimer; and Tim Wilson were major contributors to this report. 

Defense Management

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(350648) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER