DEFENSE 

MANAGEMENT

Additional 

Information Needed to 

Improve Military 

Departments’ 

Strategies for 

Corrosion Prevention 

and Control 

Report to Congressional Committees 

May 2013

GAO-13-379

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-379, a report to 

congressional committees 

May 2013 

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

Additional Information Needed to Improve Military 

Departments’ Strategies for Corrosion Prevention 

and Control 

Why GAO Did This Study

Corrosion costs DOD billions of dollars 

annually by taking critical systems out 

of action and creating safety hazards. 

Recognizing the need for coordinated 

corrosion prevention and control efforts 

and planning, House Report 112-78 

directed the military departments to 

develop corrosion prevention

strategies that support the DOD 

Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 

Strategic Plan. The House Report

directed GAO to evaluate the long-term 

strategies developed by the Corrosion 

Executive of each military department 

and to report the findings to both the 

Senate Armed Services Committee 

and the House Armed Services

Committee. GAO assessed the extent 

to which the military departments (1) 

coordinated with the Corrosion Office 

to ensure consistency of their strategic 

plans with DOD’s overarching goals 

and objectives and conformity with 

DOD Instruction 5000.67; and (2) 

included characteristics of a 

comprehensive strategic plan in their 

respective plans. GAO reviewed 

relevant legislation, the corrosion 

prevention strategic plans of DOD and 

the military departments, and 

interviewed DOD corrosion officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making two recommendations 

to improve future updates of the 

military departments’ strategic plans for 

corrosion prevention and control. DOD 

did not concur with the 

recommendations. DOD stated that the 

military departments’ plans linked to 

overarching goals and objectives and 

disagreed with the criteria GAO used 

to assess the plans. GAO continues to 

believe that these recommendations 

are valid as discussed in the report.

What GAO Found

The military departments’ Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives 

(Corrosion Executives) coordinated with the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office (Corrosion Office) on reviews of their 

respective strategic plans. GAO’s prior work has found that linking the goals of 

component organizations to departmental strategic goals is a practice that, if 

consistently applied, should improve the usefulness of plans to decision makers. 

However, the military departments varied in the extent that their strategic plans 

show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives included in the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. The Army’s strategic plan showed clear 

linkage to all 10 of the goals and objectives. The Air Force’s plan clearly linked to 

half of the goals and objectives and the Navy’s plan clearly linked to 3 of the 

goals and objectives. GAO’s review of the military departments’ strategic plans 

found no inconsistencies with DOD Instruction 5000.67, which establishes policy, 

assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance for managing programs to 

prevent or mitigate corrosion. Without consistency or a clear linkage between the 

strategic plans of the military departments and the overarching goals and 

objectives in DOD’s strategic plan, the military departments’ strategies may not 

ensure that DOD achieves its overarching goals and objectives.

The military departments’ strategic plans included or partially included the 6 key 

characteristics that aid in the development and implementation of a 

comprehensive strategic plan, but the military departments’ plans do not fully 

include some associated elements for comprehensive strategic plans—such as

performance measures. In prior work, GAO identified 6 characteristics and 31 

associated elements that comprehensive strategic plans should include. The 

Army plan fully included 2 of the 6 characteristics related to problem definition 

and risk assessment—problems and threats the strategy is directed towards—

and also integration of the strategy (i.e., how a strategy relates to other 

strategies). The Navy plan fully included 1 of the 6 characteristics related to the 

problem definition and risk assessment. The Air Force partially included all 6 of 

the characteristics. For example, the Air Force plan described some, but not all, 

aspects of the characteristic on organizational roles, responsibilities, and 

coordination—who will be implementing the strategy, what their roles will be 

compared to others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate their efforts. 

However, none of the military departments’ plans included the elements on 

outcome-related performance measures used to gauge results or the limitations 

on performance measures. Of the 31 associated elements, the Army fully 

included 24 elements in its strategic plan; the Air Force, 8; and the Navy, 9. By 

relying on strategic plans that do not fully include the elements—such as

performance measures—the military departments may not identify and 

communicate important information to corrosion stakeholders and decision

makers to monitor and assess the departments’ progress in preventing and 

mitigating corrosion.

View GAO-13-379. For more information, 

contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or 

merrittz@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Letter 1 

Background 5

Military Departments Coordinated with the Corrosion Office on 

Reviews of Their Strategic Plans, but the Plans Varied in Their 

Consistency with DOD’s Goals and Objectives 9

Military Departments’ Strategic Plans Included or Partially 

Included 6 Key Characteristics for Comprehensive Strategic 

Plans, but Do Not Include Many Elements Related to Measuring 

Performance 14

Conclusions 19

Recommendations for Executive Action 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 23

Appendix II Prior GAO Work on the Department of Defense’s Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan 25

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 27

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 29

Table

Table 1: GAO’s Recommendations in 2004 and DOD’s Actions to 

Improve Its Long-Term Corrosion Strategy 26

Figures

Figure 1: DOD’s Organization for Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation 7

Figure 2: Extent to Which the Military Departments’ Strategic Plans 

Are Consistent with the Goals and Objectives of DOD’s 

Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan 12

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Figure 3: The Extent to Which Key Characteristics and Elements 

Are Included in the Military Departments’ Strategic Plans 

for Corrosion Prevention and Control 16

Abbreviations

AT&L Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

DOD Department of Defense

FY Fiscal Year

U.S.C. United States Code

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

United States. The published product 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 1 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 16, 2013

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

In 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported that corrosion cost 

the department about $20.8 billion annually1 for military equipment and 

infrastructure.2 Corrosion can negatively affect all military assets, 

including both equipment and infrastructure, and is defined as the 

deterioration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of that 

material with its environment.3

Congress has taken a series of legislative actions aimed at enhancing 

DOD’s ability to effectively address corrosion prevention and control and 

provide the Congress with greater transparency over the department’s 

efforts. In 2002, Congress passed legislation that led to the creation of the 

Corrosion also affects military readiness by 

taking critical equipment and infrastructure out of action, and creates 

safety hazards.

 

1

This estimate, which is based on data from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, is the latest 

estimate available on DOD’s corrosion costs.

2

Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code defines military equipment as all 

weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehicles, and munitions of DOD and the components 

of such items. Infrastructure is defined as all buildings, structures, airfields, port facilities, 

surface and subterranean utility systems, heating and cooling systems, fuel tanks, 

pavements, and bridges. 

3

10 U.S.C. 2228(f)(1). The varied forms of corrosion include rusting, pitting, galvanic 

reaction, calcium or other mineral buildup, degradation due to ultraviolet light exposure, 

and mold, mildew, or other organic decay.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (hereafter referred to as the 

Corrosion Office) within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L).4 The Corrosion Office is 

responsible for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of military 

equipment and infrastructure. In 2008, Congress directed the military 

departments (Army, Navy,5 and Air Force) to designate a Corrosion 

Control and Prevention Executive (hereafter referred to as Corrosion 

Executive) to be the senior official in the department responsible for 

coordinating corrosion prevention and control activities with the Office of

the Secretary of Defense and within the department.6

In House Report 112-78,7 the House Armed Services Committee directed 

the Corrosion Executive of each military department to develop a longterm strategy by April 1, 2012, for addressing corrosion prevention and 

control within the military departments. The committee directed that the 

military departments’ strategies should support the existing DOD-level 

strategy published by the Director of the Corrosion Office. Additionally, 

the committee directed that the military departments’ strategies should 

include all areas of responsibility for the Corrosion Executive as described 

in section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and that each 

military department’s Corrosion Executive should coordinate the longterm strategy with DOD’s Corrosion Office to assure consistency8 with 

overarching DOD strategies9

 

4

Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 1067 (2002).

and conformity to DOD Instruction 5000.67, 

Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and

5

The Navy’s Corrosion Executive also is responsible for the Marine Corps’ corrosion 

issues. 

6

Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 903 (2008).

7

H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, at 104-105 (May 17, 2011).

8

For the purposes of this report, we defined “consistency” to mean that the military 

strategy links to the goals and objectives in the DOD strategic plan.

9

These overarching strategies are reflected in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan. For example, one of the strategies is to attack corrosion early in 

the acquisition or construction cycle, such as during design, manufacture, and assembly. 

Throughout the remainder of this document we refer to these strategies as goals and 

objectives.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Infrastructure.

10

The House Report directed GAO to evaluate the long-term strategies 

developed by the Corrosion Executive of each military department and to 

report the findings to the Senate Armed Services Committee and to the 

House Armed Services Committee. This report addresses (1) the extent 

that the military departments’ long-term corrosion strategies were 

coordinated with DOD’s Corrosion Office to ensure consistency with the 

goals and objectives contained in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan and conformity with DOD Instruction 5000.67; 

and (2) the extent that the military departments’ strategies include 

characteristics for a comprehensive strategic plan.

The DOD instruction establishes policy, assigns 

responsibilities, and provides guidance for the establishment and 

management of programs to prevent or mitigate corrosion of DOD’s 

military equipment and infrastructure.

To evaluate the extent to which the Corrosion Executives of the military 

departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) coordinated with DOD’s 

Corrosion Office to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of 

DOD’s strategic plan and conformity with DOD Instruction 5000.67, we 

used a combination of methodologies. To determine the degree of 

coordination between the military departments and the Corrosion Office in

developing their respective strategic plans, we interviewed Corrosion 

Office and military department officials and also reviewed documentation 

related to coordination. To determine the extent of consistency between 

the strategic plans of the military departments11

 

10Department of Defense, Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67: Prevention and 

Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 1, 2010).

and the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, we analyzed DOD’s strategic 

plan and met with Corrosion Office officials to identify their goals and 

objectives. Based on our analysis and discussions with Corrosion Office 

officials, we identified and DOD officials agreed on 10 corrosion goals and 

11Navy officials included their strategic plan as an annex to the department’s annual 

corrosion report because of DOD’s Better Buying Power Initiative, an initiative which 

includes the streamlining of documentation and guidance where possible. To treat all 

departments consistently, we decided to assess only the portion of the document 

specifically identified as the Navy’s Strategic Plan. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

objectives that were relevant to the military departments.12

To evaluate the extent to which the military departments’ corrosion 

prevention strategies include key characteristics and associated elements 

for a comprehensive strategic plan, we assessed the military strategies 

using the characteristics and elements of comprehensive strategies 

developed in previous GAO work.

We then used 

a scorecard methodology to assess each military strategy for consistency 

with the goals and objectives we identified in the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. To determine the extent to 

which the military departments’ strategic plans conform to DOD 

Instruction 5000.67, we analyzed the military strategies to determine 

whether they include a reference to DOD Instruction 5000.67 as DOD’s 

corrosion prevention and mitigation policy. We also created a set of 

structured questions that asked how each military department’s strategy 

conformed to the policies and responsibilities in the DOD instruction and 

submitted the questions to each military department. We reviewed the 

responses to determine the extent to which the military departments’ 

strategies conform to DOD Instruction 5000.67, and conducted follow-up 

interviews with officials to obtain clarification.

13

We found the information that we reviewed to be sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of assessing consistency of plans with overarching 

departmental strategies and DOD instructions. We conducted this 

performance audit from September 2012 to May 2013 in accordance with 

We used a scorecard methodology to 

assess the strategic plans and assign an overall assessment for each 

characteristic and associated element. After assessing the plans for the 

presence of these characteristics and elements, we then met with 

representatives from each of the military departments to discuss our 

assessments and gather further information from them on their strategic 

plans, including whether these characteristics and elements were 

described in other departmental corrosion documents. Based on these 

discussions, we revised our assessments when officials provided 

clarification and documentation to justify a change.

 

12Corrosion Office officials stated that it would be reasonable to expect the military 

departments to be consistent with those goals and objectives. One of DOD’s goals and 

objectives was specific to the Corrosion Office, so we did not assess the military 

departments for consistency with that goal.

13GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
 

Page 5 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. Appendix I provides more details on our scope and 

methodology.

DOD submitted the first version of its long-term corrosion strategy to 

Congress in December 2003. DOD developed this long-term strategy in 

response to direction in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003.14 In June 2004, we reviewed DOD’s long-term 

corrosion strategy.15

 

14Pub. L. 107-314, § 1067.

We found that the strategy generally addressed the 

requirements identified in the law (e.g., policy guidance, performance 

measures and milestones, and an assessment of the necessary funding 

and personnel), but it was not a comprehensive plan that officials could 

use successfully to implement strategy and to manage DOD’s extensive 

corrosion problems in the future. We recommended that DOD address 

certain shortcomings in funding, performance measures, and policy that 

we identified in its plan, and DOD concurred with our recommendations. 

Appendix II provides more information on our recommendations and 

DOD’s actions to implement them. In November 2004, DOD revised its 

long-term corrosion strategy and issued its DOD Corrosion Prevention 

and Mitigation Strategic Plan. This plan has been updated periodically, 

most recently in February 2011. According to DOD corrosion officials, 

they strive to update the plan every two years and intend to update the 

strategic plan in 2013. The purpose of the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan is to articulate policies, strategies, objectives and 

plans that will ensure an effective, standardized, affordable DOD-wide 

approach to prevent, detect and treat corrosion and its effects on military 

equipment and infrastructure. The plan also includes the action plans for 

15GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve Implementation of DOD’s 

Long-Term Corrosion Strategy, GAO-04-640 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004).

Background

Guidance for Corrosion 

Activities
 

Page 6 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

the various Working-level Integrated Product Teams.16 Also, in February 

2010, DOD reissued DOD Instruction 5000.67,17

 

16According to Corrosion Office officials, the strategies roughly link to the Working-level

Integrated Product Teams. There are seven Working-level Integrated Product Teams: 

Corrosion Policy, Processes, Procedures and Oversight; Science and Technology; 

Outreach and Communications; Facilities; Training and Certification; Specifications, 

Standards and Qualification Process; and Metrics, Impact and Sustainment.

which provides specific 

guidance and responsibilities for the Corrosion Office and military 

departments to establish and manage corrosion-prevention programs. 

The responsibilities cited in the DOD instruction include, but are not 

limited to, those established in section 2228 of Title 10 of the United 

States Code. Figure 1 illustrates DOD’s corrosion organization.

17DOD previously issued DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion 

on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, in January 2008.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Figure 1: DOD’s Organization for Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation

Congress prescribed the duties of the military departments’ Corrosion 

Executives in Section 903 of the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009.18

 

18Pub. L. No. 110-417 (Oct. 14, 2008) included as a note to 10 U.S.C. 2228.

These duties include ensuring that corrosion 

prevention and control is maintained in each department’s policy and 

guidance for management of (1) system acquisition and production, 

including design and maintenance; (2) research, development, test, and 

evaluation programs and activities; (3) equipment standardization 

Corrosion Executives’ 

Duties
 

Page 8 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

programs, including international standardization agreements; (4) logistics 

research and development initiatives; (5) logistics support analysis as it 

relates to integrated logistic support in the materiel acquisition process; 

and (6) military infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance. 

Also, the legislation states that the Corrosion Executives shall be 

responsible for identifying the funding necessary to accomplish their 

duties. Further, the legislation states that the Corrosion Executive must 

develop, support, and provide the rationale for resources to initiate and 

sustain an effective corrosion prevention and control program in the 

department; evaluate the program’s effectiveness; and ensure that 

corrosion prevention and control requirements for materiel are reflected in 

budgeting and policies of the department for the formulation, 

management, and evaluation of personnel and programs for the entire 

department, including its reserve components. Finally, each Corrosion 

Executive must serve as the respective department’s principal point of 

contact to the Director of the Corrosion Office, and submit an annual 

corrosion report to the Secretary of Defense.

To address direction from the House Armed Services Committee,19 each 

military department submitted a strategic plan for corrosion prevention 

and control to the Corrosion Office. House Report 112-78 in May 2011 

directed the military departments to coordinate with the Corrosion Office 

to ensure consistency of their respective strategic plans with DOD’s 

overarching goals and objectives and conformity with DOD Instruction 

5000.67. The Navy and Army submitted strategic plans that were 

revisions to existing corrosion prevention and control plans. In 2010, the 

Navy issued a strategic plan for corrosion control and prevention and 

included the plan in its annual corrosion report.20

 

19House Report 112-78, pp. 104-105. 

Navy officials revised 

this strategic plan and included it as an annex to their annual corrosion 

report for 2011. The Navy’s annual report includes some specific 

Corrosion Executive duties and mentions section 2228 of Title 10 of the 

United States Code as the legislation that contains the Corrosion 

Executive’s duties. Also, the Army first issued a strategic plan in March 

2011 that the department used to guide its corrosion prevention and 

control efforts. Army officials revised the strategic plan and reissued it in 

April 2012. The Army’s plan identifies all duties of the Corrosion 

20The Marine Corps is represented in the Navy’s annual report and strategic plan. 

Military Departments’ 

Strategic Plans
 

Page 9 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Executive as specified in section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States 

Code. Further, the Air Force issued its initial strategic plan in May of 

2012, shortly after filling its vacant Corrosion Executive position. The Air 

Force’s strategic plan includes a reference to section 2228 of Title 10 of 

the United States Code as the legislation that identifies the duties of the 

Corrosion Executive.

The military departments’ Corrosion Executives coordinated21 with DOD’s 

Corrosion Office on reviews of their respective strategic plans; however, 

the military departments varied in the extent that their strategic plans 

show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives included in the DOD 

Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Our comprehensive 

review found that only the Army’s strategic plan linked to all of DOD’s 

goals and objectives. The Air Force’s and Navy’s strategic plans linked to 

some, but not all, of DOD’s goals and objectives. Without consistency and 

clear linkage between the strategic plans of the military departments and 

the overarching goals and objectives from DOD’s strategic plan, the 

military departments’ strategies may not ensure that DOD achieves its 

overarching goals and objectives. Additionally, our review of the military 

departments’ strategic plans confirmed the Corrosion Office’s 

determination that there were no inconsistencies with DOD Instruction 

5000.67.

We found that the military departments’ strategic plans differed in their 

extent of consistency and linkage to DOD’s overarching goals and 

objectives. Our prior work has found that linking the goals of component 

organizations to departmental strategic goals is a practice that, if 

consistently applied, should improve the usefulness of plans to 

congressional and other decision makers.22

 

21For this report, we define “coordination” as the military departments submitting the 

respective military strategy to Corrosion Office officials for their review.

Between December 2011 and 

May 2012, the Corrosion Executives of the military departments 

submitted their plans to the Corrosion Office, and the Corrosion Office 

reviewed each of those plans and determined that there were no 

inconsistencies with DOD’s overarching goals and objectives. For 

22GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness 

to Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999).

Military Departments 

Coordinated with the 

Corrosion Office on 

Reviews of Their 

Strategic Plans, but 

the Plans Varied in 

Their Consistency 

with DOD’s Goals and 

Objectives

Military Departments’ 

Corrosion Strategies 

Varied in Their Degree of 

Consistency with DOD’s 

Goals and Objectives
 

Page 10 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

example, one overarching goal and objective in the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan is conducting focused corrosion 

prevention and mitigation training tailored to learning requirements at 

each management and technical level in the military department. 

According to Corrosion Office officials, had there been some aspect of a 

military department’s plan that contradicted DOD’s goal of providing 

corrosion prevention and mitigation training, that would have been 

unacceptable.

We found the following in our assessment of consistency between the 

military departments’ strategic plans and the overarching goals and 

objectives in the DOD strategic plan:

• The Army’s strategic plan is consistent with and links with all 10 of 

DOD’s goals and objectives and cites the DOD Corrosion Prevention 

and Mitigation Strategic Plan as part of the guidance that influenced 

the content of the Army’s plan. For example, the plan is consistent 

with and links with DOD’s goal of corrosion research and development 

efforts on material and manufacturing processes because the Army’s 

plan clearly cited the need to adapt commercial technologies to 

prevent or reduce the incidence and effects of corrosion.

• The Air Force’s strategic plan is consistent with and links with 5 of 10 

of DOD’s overarching goals and objectives, and is partially consistent 

with 4 of 10 goals and objectives. For example, the plan is consistent 

with and links with DOD’s goal of attacking corrosion early in the 

acquisition or construction cycle because the plan clearly described

that its focus is to incorporate corrosion prevention, control, and 

mitigation in the weapon system and infrastructure life cycle. In 

addition, we found that the Air Force’s plan is partially consistent with 

some of DOD’s goals and objectives. For example, the Air Force’s 

plan acknowledges a general need for training and technology, but 

the plan does not state the specific level at which the training should 

be accomplished. Lastly, the Air Force’s plan did not describe DOD’s 

goal on modernizing corrosion specifications, standards, and other 

requirements. Air Force officials acknowledged that the department 

could benefit from more military corrosion specifications.

• The Navy’s strategic plan is consistent with and links with only 3 of 10 

of DOD’s overarching goals and objectives, and is partially consistent 

with 2 of 10 goals and objectives. For example, the Navy’s plan is 

consistent with and links with DOD’s goal to attack corrosion early in 

the acquisition cycle because the plan clearly described how the most 

proactive approach to mitigating corrosion is a commitment to 

corrosion prevention and control early in the acquisition cycle. We 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

also found that the Navy’s plan is partially consistent with some of 

DOD’s goals and objectives. For example, the Navy’s plan 

acknowledges DOD’s goal of establishing communication channels on 

all aspects of corrosion from every organization within the military and 

industry communities. We found that this was partially consistent 

because the Navy’s plan did not include goals to establish 

communication channels for the national and international 

communities. Also, the Navy’s strategic plan did not contain evidence 

of consistency with 5 of DOD’s goals and objectives. For example, the 

Navy’s plan did not mention modernizing corrosion specifications and 

standards.23

Figure 2 summarizes the extent to which the military departments’ longterm strategic plans for corrosion prevention and control are consistent 

with and link with the goals and objectives of DOD’s strategic plan.

Also, focusing research and development efforts on 

coatings, treatments, and other applications to prevent corrosion was 

not mentioned.

 

23The Navy’s Corrosion Executive stated that the Office of the Secretary of Defense has a 

requirement to determine specifications and standards, but the Navy does not have such 

a requirement. However, all military departments acknowledged that their departments 

work on developing or influencing corrosion specifications and standards.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Figure 2: Extent to Which the Military Departments’ Strategic Plans Are Consistent with the Goals and Objectives of DOD’s 

Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan

Note: We considered a military department’s plan to be “consistent” when the plan explicitly described 

all parts, “partially consistent” when the plan described some aspects, and “not consistent” when the 

plan did not explicitly cite any part of a DOD goal and objective in its strategic plan. 

In interviews during our review, Corrosion Office officials stated that they 

did not provide guidance to the departments while they were developing 

their strategies because it is the policy of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for AT&L to allow the military departments the freedom to manage any 

issue not specifically identified as a responsibility of AT&L pursuant to 

section 133 of Title 10 of the United States Code. In interviews, the 

Corrosion Executives also stated that the military departments’ strategic 

plans should not have to be consistent with DOD’s strategic plan because 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

they have not been given the opportunity to provide input to DOD’s plan. 

However, Corrosion Office officials stated that representatives from the 

military departments reviewed the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan when it was initially issued, and that the 

Corrosion Executives can provide input to DOD’s plan at any time. 

Without consistency and clear linkage between the strategic plans of the 

military departments and the overarching goals and objectives in DOD’s 

strategic plan, the military departments’ strategies may not ensure that 

DOD achieves its overarching goals and objectives.

The Corrosion Office reviewed the military departments’ strategic plans 

and found no inconsistencies between any department’s plan and DOD 

Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD 

Military Equipment and Infrastructure. DOD Instruction 5000.67 

establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance for 

managing programs to prevent or mitigate corrosion. For example, the 

instruction states that it is DOD policy that corrosion prevention and 

control programs and preservation techniques shall be implemented 

throughout the life cycle of all military equipment and infrastructure. It 

further states that it is the responsibility of the Corrosion Executives to 

support the Corrosion Office’s Integrated Product Team process. We 

reviewed the military departments’ strategic plans for references to the 

instruction as DOD’s corrosion policy, and also obtained input from the 

Corrosion Executives regarding specific areas of conformity. We did not 

find any inconsistencies with DOD Instruction 5000.67. For example, we 

found

• The Army and the Air Force plans included a reference to DOD 

Instruction 5000.67 as DOD’s guiding policy on corrosion. The Navy

also acknowledged that DOD Instruction 5000.67 is DOD policy with 

which it must comply.

• All of the plans described how each military department will support 

the Corrosion Office’s Integrated Product Team process, which is one 

of the responsibilities identified in the DOD instruction.

• All of the plans described actions—corrosion prevention and control 

programs and preservation techniques—that the military departments 

are taking to address corrosion throughout the life cycle of military 

equipment and infrastructure.

Military Corrosion 

Prevention Strategies 

Conform to DOD 

Instruction 5000.67
 

Page 14 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

The military departments’ strategic plans fully included or partially 

included the 6 key characteristics that aid in the development and 

implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan, but the departments’ 

plans do not include many of the associated elements for comprehensive 

strategic plans—specifically, elements relating to performance measures. 

Based on our previous work, we have identified 6 key characteristics that 

comprehensive strategic plans should address, including 31 elements 

within those characteristics.24 The 6 key characteristics are: (1) purpose, 

scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and risk assessment; 

(3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures; 

(4) resources, investments, and risk management; (5) organizational 

roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration. These 

characteristics and elements are intended to aid responsible parties in 

further developing and implementing the strategies—and to enhance their 

usefulness in resource and policy decisions and to better assure 

accountability.25

We assessed the extent to which the military departments’ strategic plans 

included, partially included, or did not include the 6 key characteristics. 

Our assessment of the departments’ plans found that:

• The Army fully included 2 and partially included 4 key characteristics. 

For example, the Army plan described the characteristic regarding 

problem definition and risk assessment, as well as the characteristic 

of integration. However, the Army plan described only some aspects 

of 4 key characteristics. For instance, regarding the purpose, scope, 

and methodology characteristic—why the strategy was produced, the 

scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed—

the Army plan described only partially what organizations or offices 

drafted the strategy or were consulted in its development. Also, the 

Army plan described only partially the characteristic related to 

organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination—who will 

implement the strategy, what their roles will be compared to others, 

and the mechanisms for them to coordinate their efforts. For example, 

the Army plan describes how it will coordinate within the department, 

 

24GAO-04-408T. 

25GAO uses these characteristics and elements to assess government strategic plans, but 

we also acknowledge that the plans do not have to provide all the details on every 

characteristic and associated element. 

Military Departments’ 

Strategic Plans 

Included or Partially 

Included 6 Key 

Characteristics for 

Comprehensive 

Strategic Plans, but 

Do Not Include Many 

Elements Related to 

Measuring 

Performance 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

but describes only partially how it will coordinate with other 

departments.

• The Air Force partially included all 6 key characteristics. For example, 

the Air Force partially included the characteristic on goals, 

subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures.

Specifically, the plan included activities to achieve results, but did not 

include performance measures to gauge results. Also, we found that 

the Air Force plan described some, but not all, aspects of 

organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination. For example, 

we found that the Air Force plan identifies the lead, support, and 

partner roles for corrosion prevention, but it does not identify the 

responsibilities of each department or office that it cited.

• The Navy fully included 1 and partially included 5 key characteristics. 

For example, the Navy plan described the problem definition and risk 

assessment characteristic by specifically citing the problems the 

strategy is intended to address, the causes of the problems, and the 

operating environment which are elements of this characteristic. We 

also found that the Navy partially included the characteristic on goals, 

subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures. For 

example, the plan included specific activities to achieve results, but 

did not include performance measures to gauge results. Also, the 

Navy plan described only partially the key characteristic regarding 

integration—how a strategy relates to other strategies’ goals, 

objectives and activities—because the plan described only some 

aspects of how the corrosion strategy related to DOD’s overarching 

strategies, goals and objectives.

Additionally, using our scorecard methodology,26

• The Army’s corrosion plan included 24 of the 31 elements, partially 

included another 5 elements, and did not include 2 elements.

we determined the 

extent to which the military departments included the 31 associated 

elements and found that:

• The Air Force’s corrosion plan included 8 of the 31 elements, partially 

included 17 elements, and did not include 6 elements.

• The Navy’s corrosion plan included 9 of 31 elements, partially 

included 12 elements, and did not include 10 elements.

 

26Appendix I provides more information on our scope and methodology.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Figure 3 summarizes the extent to which the military departments’ 

strategic plans for corrosion prevention and control include the 6 key 

characteristics and the 31 associated elements for strategic plans.

Figure 3: The Extent to Which Key Characteristics and Elements Are Included in the Military Departments’ Strategic Plans for 

Corrosion Prevention and Control
 

Page 17 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Figure 3 (cont.): The Extent to Which Key Characteristics and Elements Are Included in the Military Departments’ Strategic 

Plans for Corrosion Prevention and Control

Notes: We determined that a military department’s strategy “included” the key characteristic or 

element if the plan described all the characteristics and elements. We assessed a characteristic or 

element as “partially included” if the plan described some aspects of the characteristic or element. If a 

plan did not explicitly describe any aspect of the characteristic or element, we determined that the 

characteristic or element was “not included” in the military department’s strategy. 

In assessing the integration characteristic, we used our results from assessing the consistency, if any, 

between a military department’s strategic plan and DOD’s overarching goals and objectives (See fig. 

2).

All military departments’ strategic plans included the elements on key 

terms, major functions, mission areas, or activities that the strategies 

cover, the purpose, the threats the strategy is directed toward, the 

problems the strategy is intended to address, and the causes of these 

problems. Further, each department’s plan partially included 3 additional 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

elements. For example, each plan partially included the element 

describing how the department will coordinate with other departments.

However, no departmental plan included the 2 elements describing 

outcome-related performance measures27

In interviews, the Air Force’s Corrosion Executive stated that the 

department did not have an appointed Corrosion Executive for over a 

year, so the department did not have leadership in place to develop a 

long-term strategic plan that contained all of the elements. The Navy’s 

Corrosion Executive stated that the Navy did not include many of the 

elements in its strategic plan because those elements are contained in 

other departmental documentation, such as the Navy’s annual corrosion 

report. In reviewing the Navy’s annual report and other documentation, 

we found that some of the elements were present, such as how the Navy 

will coordinate corrosion issues within the department; however, some 

elements were not present, such as performance measures.

and their limitations. Based on 

our prior work, outcome-related measures are an assessment of the 

results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose. Also, 

performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of 

program accomplishments—in particular progress toward preestablished 

goals. Further, another element is output-related measures, which are the 

direct products and services delivered by a program. These measures 

include tabulations, calculations, or recording of activities or efforts, and 

can be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner. The Army’s plan 

included output-related performance measures. Specifically, the Army’s 

plan included an output-related performance measure to review and 

update the corrosion prevention aspects of at least 10 percent of its 

publications each year. Also, the Army’s plan identified several other 

performance metrics, but some of these metrics are not expressed in 

measurable form. For example, one metric that the Army’s plan identified 

is to develop a standard process for conducting corrosion surveys and 

executing pilot surveys for both equipment and infrastructure. The Air 

Force and Navy plans did not include output-related performance 

measures.

28

 

27GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships,

An Army 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). Performance measures may address 

outputs or outcomes. 

28To treat all military departments consistently, we decided to assess only what the Navy 

identified specifically as its strategic plan. 
 

Page 19 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

official representing the Corrosion Executive stated that the Army’s plan 

did not include outcome-related performance measures because of 

difficulty in developing them. By relying on strategic plans without 

performance measures, resource allocations, and other elements for 

effective strategic plans, the military departments may not identify and 

communicate important information to corrosion stakeholders and 

decision makers to monitor and assess the departments’ progress in 

preventing and mitigating corrosion.

For about a decade, Congress has required additional oversight and 

transparency for DOD’s spending of billions of dollars a year on corrosion 

prevention and control activities. For example, in House Report 112-78, 

the House Armed Services Committee directed the Corrosion Executive 

of each military department to develop a long-term strategy for 

addressing corrosion prevention and control and to align each strategy 

with the goals and objectives of the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan. Our review found that the military departments 

varied in the extent that their respective strategic plans clearly linked with 

the goals and objectives of the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 

Strategic Plan. Prior GAO work has found that aligning departmental 

goals with agency-wide goals and objectives is a key practice that could 

improve the usefulness of plans to DOD in its efforts to effectively prevent 

and mitigate corrosion. Without consistency and clear linkage between 

the strategic plans of the military departments and the overarching goals 

and objectives in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic 

Plan, the military departments’ strategies may not succeed in helping 

DOD achieve its overarching goals and objectives.

In addition, the military departments’ strategic plans for corrosion 

prevention and control included some of the 6 key characteristics and 31 

associated elements of a comprehensive strategic plan, but were missing 

some aspects of some key characteristics and elements. For example, 

none of the plans contain outcome-related performance measures or 

limitations of performance measures, which our prior work has shown are 

elements to aid responsible parties to fully develop and implement their 

strategies. Prior GAO work has found that these measures can provide 

decision makers with insights on the accomplishments of the military 

departments’ corrosion programs. By executing strategic plans without 

elements such as performance measures, the military departments may 

not be able to determine the success or gauge the progress of their 

activities to prevent and to mitigate corrosion.

Conclusions
 

Page 20 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

To ensure that the military departments’ future strategic plans to address 

corrosion demonstrate consistency and a clear linkage to DOD’s 

corrosion goals and objectives, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy to direct the 

Corrosion Executives to include in their next update of their strategic 

plans clear linkage to DOD’s overarching goals and objectives as 

described in DOD’s strategic plan.

To ensure that the military departments’ strategic plans to address 

corrosion include key characteristics of a comprehensive strategic plan, 

we recommend that the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy 

direct the Corrosion Executives to develop and include all six key 

characteristics of a comprehensive strategic plan, including but not limited 

to elements relating to performance measures.

We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In its 

written comments, which are reprinted in appendix III, DOD did not agree 

with our two recommendations.

DOD did not concur with our recommendation that the Air Force and 

Navy Corrosion Executives include in their next update of their strategic 

plans clear linkage to DOD’s overarching goals and objectives as 

described in DOD’s strategic plan. DOD responded that the Director, 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight reviewed the military departments’ 

corrosion strategic plans and determined their strategies were sufficiently 

linked to specific performance goals and consistent with DOD’s 

overarching goals and objectives. During our review, Corrosion Office 

officials told us that they reviewed the military departments’ plans only for 

consistency with the DOD strategic plan. For example, Corrosion Office 

officials stated that one overarching goal and objective in the DOD 

strategic plan is related to training and had there been some aspect of a 

military department’s plan that was antitraining that would have been 

unacceptable. However, we found that the Corrosion Office’s review did 

not ensure the military departments’ plans linked with all of DOD’s 

overarching goals and objectives. Specifically, we found that the military 

departments’ strategies differed in their extent of consistency and linkage 

to the 10 overarching goals and objectives in DOD’s strategic plan. Our 

assessment found the Air Force’s plan was consistent with and linked

with 5 of 10 of DOD’s overarching goals and objectives, and was partially 

consistent with 4 of 10 goals and objectives. We also found the Navy’s 

plan was consistent with and linked with only 3 of 10 of DOD’s 

overarching goals and objectives, and was partially consistent with 2 of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 21 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

10 goals and objectives. We maintain that linking the goals of component 

organizations to departmental strategic goals is a practice that should 

improve the usefulness of plans to Congress and other decision makers, 

if consistently applied.29

DOD did not concur with our recommendation that the military 

departments develop and include all six key characteristics of a 

comprehensive strategic plan, including, but not limited to, elements 

relating to performance measures. DOD stated that the key 

characteristics and associated elements of a comprehensive strategic 

plan that we reference in this report were developed by GAO after our 

review of several national strategies and not applicable to the military 

departments’ corrosion strategic plans.

30 DOD stated that the military 

departments’ corrosion strategic plans are agency-specific strategic plans 

that should be tailored to departmental requirements and not necessarily 

include the six key characteristics. However, these key characteristics 

and elements were used by GAO to assess and make recommendations 

for improvement to an early version of DOD’s long-term corrosion 

strategic plan. Specifically, in 2003, we recommended that DOD’s longterm corrosion strategic plan include clearly defined goals, measurable 

outcome-oriented objectives, and performance measures.31 DOD 

concurred with this recommendation and in its 2005 update to the DOD 

corrosion strategic plan, DOD included a revised list of metrics for cost, 

readiness and safety and the associated outcomes that would result from 

the implementation of these metrics. We maintain that the key 

characteristics and associated elements, such as performance measures, 

are applicable to strategies at all levels, including the military departments

because the elements help monitor progress toward preestablished goals 

and are designed to aid responsible parties in further developing and 

implementing the strategies—and to enhance their usefulness in resource 

and policy decisions and to better assure accountability.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense 

 

29GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69. 

30GAO-04-408T. 

31GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase 

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

Page 22 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); the Secretaries of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV.

Zina D. Merritt

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

To evaluate the extent to which the Corrosion Executives of the military 

departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) coordinated with DOD’s 

Corrosion Office to ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of 

DOD’s strategic plan and conformity with DOD Instruction 5000.67, we 

used a combination of methodologies. To determine the degree of 

coordination between the military departments and the Corrosion Office in 

developing their respective strategic plans, we interviewed Corrosion 

Office and military department officials and also reviewed documentation 

related to coordination. To determine the extent of consistency between 

the strategic plans of the military departments1

To evaluate the extent to which the military departments’ corrosion 

prevention strategies included characteristics and elements for a 

comprehensive strategic plan (31 elements grouped into 6 

and the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, we analyzed the DOD strategic 

plan and met with Corrosion Office officials to identify the goals and 

objectives with which the military departments’ plans should be 

consistent. We then used a scorecard methodology to assess each 

military strategy for consistency with the goals and objectives we 

identified in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. 

We considered a military department’s plan to be “consistent” when the 

plan explicitly described all parts, “partially consistent” when the plan 

described some aspects, and “not consistent” when the plan did not 

explicitly cite any part of a goal and objective in its strategic plan. To 

determine the extent to which the military departments’ strategic plans 

conform to DOD Instruction 5000.67, we analyzed the military strategies 

for references to or citations of the instruction as DOD’s corrosion 

prevention and mitigation policy. We also created a set of structured 

questions that asked how the respective military department’s strategy 

conformed to the responsibilities in the DOD instruction and submitted 

them to the military departments. We reviewed their responses to 

determine the extent to which the military strategies are consistent with 

DOD Instruction 5000.67 and conducted follow-up interviews with officials 

to obtain clarification.

 

1

Navy officials included their strategic plan as an annex to the department’s annual 

corrosion report because of DOD’s Better Buying Power Initiative, an initiative which 

includes the streamlining of documentation and guidance where possible. To treat all 

military departments consistently, we made the decision to assess only the portions of 

documents that were identified as strategic plans; therefore, for the Navy we assessed a 

report section identified as the Navy’s Strategic Plan, and did not assess the Navy’s entire 

annual corrosion report. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

characteristics), we relied on the work of previous GAO teams and 

engagements that identified those characteristics and elements2

For each objective, we assessed the reliability of the information that we 

analyzed by reviewing existing documentation related to the information

sources and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about the 

information that we used. We found the information sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of this report.

and 

used a scorecard methodology to review the military departments’ 

strategic plans. We reviewed the military departments’ plans and 

assessed whether each included, partially included, or did not include the 

characteristics and elements identified in our prior work. We determined 

that a military department’s strategy “included” the characteristics and 

elements when the plan described all the characteristics and elements 

and “partially included” when the plan described some characteristics and 

elements. When a plan did not explicitly cite any of the characteristics and 

elements, we determined that the characteristic and elements that aid in 

the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan 

were “not included” in the military department’s strategy. We then met 

with representatives from each of the military departments to discuss our 

assessments and gather further information from them on their strategic 

plans and the characteristics and elements, including whether the 

characteristics and elements were addressed in other departmental 

corrosion documents. Based on these discussions we changed our 

assessments when officials provided clarification to justify a change.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to May 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

2

GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National Strategies 

Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004), and Managing for 

Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies’ Strategic Plans, 

GAO/GGD-97-180 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 16, 1997).
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on the 

Department of Defense’s Corrosion Prevention 

and Mitigation Strategic Plan

Page 25 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

In 2004, we reported1 that the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) longterm corrosion strategy generally addressed the requirements in the 

congressional mandate;2

• the strategy did not identify the level of funding and personnel 

resources needed to implement the corrosion reduction plan in the 

near- or long-term;

however, it fell short of representing a 

comprehensive plan needed to successfully implement the strategy and 

manage DOD’s extensive corrosion problems in the future. Specifically, 

we found that:

• the strategy included some performance measures and milestones, 

but they were not the results-oriented metrics needed to successfully 

monitor the program’s progress; and

• the strategy strengthened DOD’s policy guidance on corrosion 

prevention and mitigation, but improvements could be made.

We recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics take several actions related to improving the 

long-term corrosion strategy, including identifying funding and personnel 

resources to implement the DOD strategy, and completing a study to 

establish priorities and performance measures to monitor progress in 

reducing corrosion.3 Table 1 details the three recommendations we made 

in our 2004 report that are relevant to this review of the military 

departments’ strategic plans, and the respective actions taken by DOD.

 

1

GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve Implementation of DOD’s 

Long-Term Corrosion Strategy, GAO-04-640 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004).

2

Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. 107-314, § 

1067 (Dec. 2, 2002).

3

We also made recommendations to the Secretaries of the military departments and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but these recommendations were not related to 

strategic planning.

Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on the 

Department of Defense’s Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on the 

Department of Defense’s Corrosion Prevention 

and Mitigation Strategic Plan

Page 26 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Table 1: GAO’s Recommendations in 2004 and DOD’s Actions to Improve Its Long-Term Corrosion Strategy 

Recommendationa Actions Taken

To provide better assurances that the Department of Defense’s long-term 

corrosion strategy is successfully implemented as envisioned by Congress, the 

Secretary of Defense should instruct the Undersecretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the DOD 

Comptroller, to submit to Congress, as part of the fiscal year 2006 budget 

submission, a report identifying the long-term funding and personnel resources 

needed to implement the strategy, a status report of corrosion reduction 

projects funded in fiscal year 2005, and the status of a baseline study.

Implemented—As part of the FY 2006 budget 

submission, DOD submitted a report identifying the 

long-term funding and personnel resources needed 

to implement the strategy. A list of candidate 

corrosion reduction projects was included, as was 

the status of the baseline study. In addition, the May 

2005 Corrosion Prevention Report to Congress also 

addresses this recommendation.

To provide better assurances that the Department of Defense’s long-term 

corrosion strategy is successfully implemented as envisioned by Congress, the 

Secretary of Defense should instruct the Undersecretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the DOD 

Comptroller, to establish a funding mechanism to implement the corrosion 

strategy that would be consistent with the strategy’s long-term focus.

Implemented—In FY 2006, the Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight Office began submitting its annual funding 

requests through the planning, programming and 

budgeting, and execution process. These funding 

requests are identified in a separate Office of the 

Secretary of Defense Program Element.

To provide better assurances that the Department of Defense’s long-term 

corrosion strategy is successfully implemented as envisioned by Congress, the 

Secretary of Defense should instruct the Undersecretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the DOD 

Comptroller, to establish a date to complete the corrosion baseline study well 

before its original estimated completion date of 2011 in order that cost-effective 

resource priorities and results-oriented performance measures can be 

established to monitor progress in reducing corrosion and its impacts on 

equipment and infrastructure.

Implemented—In April 2007, we reported that DOD 

completed cost-study segments for Army ground 

vehicles and Navy ships in 2006, and planned to 

complete in 2007 the segments for DOD facilities, 

Army aviation and missiles, and USMC ground 

vehicles. The remaining segments—Navy and 

Marine Corps aviation and Coast Guard aviation and 

ships—have been completed.

Source: GAO. 

a

GAO reported five recommendations, including one that was reported to the Secretary of each of the 

three military departments. We included only three recommendations because they are related to 

improving DOD’s long-term corrosion strategy. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 27 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 28 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 29 GAO-13-379 Defense Management 

Zina D. Merritt, (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Carleen Bennett, Assistant 

Director; Elizabeth Curda; Mark Dowling; Dawn Godfrey; Richard 

Powelson; Terry Richardson; Matthew Spiers; Amie Steele; Thomas 

Twambly; and John Van Schaik made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(351643)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.