DEFENSE 

MANAGEMENT

DOD Should Enhance 

Oversight of 

Equipment-Related 

Corrosion Projects

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2013

GAO-13-661

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-661, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2013

DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

DOD Should Enhance Oversight of Equipment- Related Corrosion Projects

Why GAO Did This Study

According to DOD, corrosion can 

significantly affect the cost of 

equipment maintenance and expected 

service life of equipment. Corrosion 

affects military readiness by taking 

critical systems out of action and 

creating safety hazards. GAO was 

asked to review DOD’s militaryequipment corrosion-prevention and 

mitigation projects. In this report, GAO 

addressed the extent to which DOD

has (1) ensured the submission of 

required reports for equipment-related 

corrosion projects; (2) collected the 

information needed to determine 

whether benefits and other measures 

have been achieved from equipmentrelated corrosion projects; (3) tracked

the status of equipment-related 

corrosion projects; and (4) identified, 

shared, and incorporated lessons 

learned from equipment-related 

corrosion projects into future planning 

to prevent or mitigate corrosion. To 

conduct this work, GAO reviewed DOD 

policies and plans and met with DOD 

corrosion officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends four actions to 

improve the oversight of DOD’s 

corrosion-prevention and control 

program. DOD concurred with two 

recommendations, partially concurred 

with one, and did not concur with one. 

DOD plans to develop a database to 

collect data and lessons learned on 

corrosion projects and to revise 

guidance on how to report the ROI for 

discontinued projects. DOD did not 

agree that guidance should be revised

to ensure military departments

consistently report projects’ benefits. 

GAO maintains that this

recommendation is warranted for 

project oversight.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has invested more than $63 million in 88

projects in fiscal years 2005 through 2010 to demonstrate new technology or 

methods addressing equipment-related corrosion. DOD’s Office of Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight (Corrosion Office) has collected a majority of required final 

and follow-on reports on the results of equipment-related corrosion projects and 

is taking steps to obtain outstanding reports. As of May 2013, GAO found project 

managers had submitted final reports for 55 of the 88 projects (about 63 percent) 

funded in fiscal years 2005 through 2010 and submitted follow-on reports for 27 

of the 41 projects (about 66 percent) funded from 2005 through 2007.

DOD requires the military departments to collect and report to the Corrosion 

Office key information from equipment-related corrosion projects about new 

technologies or methods; however, DOD does not have complete information 

about the benefits of all projects. GAO found that the military departments 

inconsistently reported measures of achievement other than the return on 

investment (ROI), such as when outcomes prompted changes to military 

equipment specifications. Further, the military departments did not always collect 

required information needed to recompute the estimated ROI and were unable to 

determine whether projects had achieved their estimated ROI. Corrosion Office 

officials plan to revise guidance on how project managers should be reassessing 

the ROI. Without specific guidance to require that follow-on reports include 

details of measures of achievement other than ROI, the Corrosion Office will be 

missing the opportunity to know whether equipment-related corrosion projects 

have achieved outcomes to prevent corrosion.

DOD has taken steps to improve oversight of its equipment-related corrosion 

projects, such as revising its DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic 

Plan to provide additional guidance on reporting requirements. However, DOD 

does not have a comprehensive overview of the status of all equipment-related 

corrosion projects. While the reports provide the status for each project, GAO 

found that the Corrosion Office does not consolidate information to monitor the 

status of all these projects, such as if a project has not transitioned to service use 

or has been discontinued. Further, GAO found that project managers vary in how 

they reported the ROI for discontinued projects. Without a mechanism to 

consolidate projects’ status to facilitate monitoring and guidance for reporting 

ROIs for discontinued projects, the Corrosion Office and the military departments

may not have timely information of whether the corrosion projects produced 

proven methods and products to prevent the corrosion of military equipment.

DOD has identified and incorporated lessons learned from equipment-related 

corrosion projects and shared some lessons with the corrosion community;

however, DOD has no centralized and secure database or other source to share 

lessons from all project reports, including those with sensitive information. While 

DOD has begun to develop a database that would contain lessons learned on all 

projects, development is in the early stages, and DOD is unsure when it will be 

completed. Until a comprehensive, centralized, and secure database is 

developed that includes lessons learned from all completed projects, officials 

from DOD’s corrosion community will not have full and complete information on 

lessons learned, including proven methods or products to prevent or mitigate 

corrosion of military equipment.

View GAO-13-661. For more information, 

contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or 

merrittz@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Letter 1

Background 7

DOD Has Collected a Majority of Required Reports on the Results 

of Equipment-Related Corrosion Projects and Is Taking Steps to 

Obtain Those Outstanding 15

DOD Collects Information on the Benefits of Corrosion Projects, 

but Is Not Always Reporting Details of the Benefits or 

Determining Whether Projects Achieve Their Estimated ROI 18

DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Oversight, but Does Not Have a 

Comprehensive Overview of the Status of All Equipment-Related 

Corrosion Projects 24

DOD Has Incorporated Lessons from Equipment-Related Corrosion 

Projects, but Does Not Have a Comprehensive Database to 

Share Lessons of All Projects 28

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39

Appendix II Follow-on Report, also known as the Project Review 

Checklist 45

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 46

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Related GAO Products 50

Tables

Table 1: Status of Final Reports for the 88 Equipment-Related 

Corrosion Projects Funded in Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2010 16

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Table 2: Status of Follow-on Reports for the 41 Equipment-Related 

Corrosion Projects Funded in Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2007 17

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of DOD’s Process for Corrosion Projects 10

Figure 2: Breakout of the Number of Projects That Reached 

Various Reporting Milestones (as of May 15, 2013) 12

Figure 3: Project Review Checklist 45

Abbreviations

Corrosion Executive Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive 

Corrosion Office Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

DOD Department of Defense

DTIC Defense Technical Information Center

ERDM2 Engineering Resource Data Management

FY fiscal year

MRAP Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (vehicle 

system)

ROI return on investment

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-13-661 Defense Management

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 9, 2013

The Honorable Robert J. Wittman

Chairman

The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes

House of Representatives

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

cost of corrosion was about $20.8 billion1 annually to prevent and mitigate 

corrosion of all of its assets, including military equipment and weapons, 

and facilities and other infrastructure.2 The vast majority of these costs, 

approximately $19 billion, are related to corrosion issues on military 

equipment and weapons.3 Corrosion is defined in Section 2228 of Title 10 

of the United States Code as the deterioration of a material or its 

properties due to a reaction of that material with its chemical 

environment.4 Corrosion affects military readiness by taking critical 

systems out of action and creating safety hazards. DOD funds military 

demonstration projects for both military equipment and infrastructure to 

identify new technologies or methods to prevent or mitigate corrosion. 

 1

This cost estimate, which was produced by a DOD contractor, LMI, and is based on data 

from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, is the latest estimate available on DOD corrosion 

costs.

2

Infrastructure is defined in Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code as all 

buildings, structures, airfields, port facilities, surface and subterranean utility systems, 

heating and cooling systems, fuel tanks, pavements, and bridges.

3

In May 2013, GAO reported that DOD estimated the cost of corrosion at DOD facilities 

and other infrastructure to be about $1.9 billion annually. See GAO, Defense 

Infrastructure: DOD Should Improve Reporting and Communication on Its Corrosion 

Prevention and Control Activities, GAO-13-270 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2013).

4

Corrosion takes varied forms such as 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-13-661 Defense Management

Military equipment includes all weapon systems, weapon platforms, 

vehicles, and munitions of DOD and the components of such items.

Congress has taken a series of legislative actions aimed at enhancing 

DOD’s ability to effectively address corrosion prevention and mitigation 

and provide Congress with greater transparency over the department’s 

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

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. The Corrosion Office is 

responsible for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of military 

equipment and infrastructure.5 Among other things, Section 2228 of Title 

10 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Defense to 

develop and implement a long-term strategy to reduce corrosion and the 

effects of corrosion on the military equipment and infrastructure of the 

department, including, among other things, (1) uniform application of 

requirements and criteria for testing and certifying new technologies for 

equipment and infrastructure with similar characteristics, missions, or 

operating environments; (2) implementation of programs to ensure a 

focused and coordinated approach to collect, review, validate, and 

distribute information on proven corrosion-prevention methods and

products; and (3) establishment of a coordinated research and 

development program for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion for 

new and existing military equipment and infrastructure that includes a 

plan to transition new corrosion-prevention technologies into operational 

systems. Additionally, the statute requires the Secretary of Defense to 

annually submit, along with the defense budget materials, a report to 

Congress on corrosion funding, including funding requirements for the 

long-term strategy, and including the returns on investment (ROI)6 for 

corrosion-control demonstration projects.

 5

The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required the 

Secretary of Defense to designate an officer, employee, board, or committee as the 

individual or office with this responsibility. See Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 1067 (2002) 

(codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2228). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 amended this requirement by designating the Director of Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight as the official with these responsibilities. See Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 371 (2008) 

(amending 10 U.S.C. § 2228).

6

While the statute does not define “return on investment” (ROI) for its corrosion-control 

technology demonstration projects, DOD defines the estimated ROI as the ratio of the 

present value of benefits to the present value of the project total cost.
Page 3 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

In 2008, section 903 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 required the Departments of the 

Army, Navy, and Air Force to each designate a Corrosion Control and 

Prevention Executive (hereafter referred to as Corrosion Executive) to be 

the senior official in each military department with responsibility for 

coordinating department-level corrosion-prevention and control program 

activities.7 Section 903, among other things, assigned responsibility to the 

three Corrosion Executives for (1) coordinating department-level 

corrosion prevention and control activities (including budget 

programming) with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the program 

executive officers of the military departments, and relevant major 

subordinate commands of the military departments; (2) ensuring that 

corrosion prevention and control is maintained in each department’s 

policy and guidance, including military infrastructure design, construction, 

and maintenance; (3) identifying the funding levels necessary for 

accomplishing certain corrosion-related priorities in their departments;

and (4) submitting an annual report to the Secretary of Defense 

containing recommendations pertaining to the corrosion-prevention and 

control program of their departments. Section 903 also designated each 

military department’s Corrosion Executive as that department’s principal 

point of contact with the Director of the Corrosion Office.

To carry out its responsibilities, the Corrosion Office took a number of 

actions, including developing an instruction to establish policy, assign 

responsibilities, and provide guidance for corrosion-prevention and 

control within DOD; and developing a strategic plan to describe policies, 

strategies, objectives, and plans aimed toward an effective DOD-wide 

approach to prevent and mitigate corrosion of military equipment and 

infrastructure. Also, the Corrosion Office and military departments have 

identified and funded corrosion projects in which the military departments 

demonstrated new technology to address corrosion. Additionally, the 

Corrosion Office has required military departments’ project managers to 

submit periodic reports on the status and outcomes of these projects.

In response to your request, we reviewed DOD’s military-equipment 

corrosion projects and DOD’s validation of the ROI of these projects. The 

DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan uses the phrase 

 7

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. 

No.110-417, § 903 (2008).
Page 4 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

“return-on-investment (ROI) validation” to describe how project managers 

recompute the ROI estimate included in a project’s status report. This 

recomputation is based on revised cost data after the project has been 

completed and the new technology has been transitioned to the services’

use and tracked for 2 years. We are using the terms “reassessment” or 

“reassessed” rather than “validation” or “validated” because these terms

more closely describe the process that the project managers are to use to 

review and update, if necessary, the assumptions used to recompute the 

initial ROI estimate. Additionally, Corrosion Office officials told us that 

they are planning to use the term “reassessment” in the revised DOD 

strategic plan. The reassessment is not an update based on actual results 

of the cost savings achieved by the project.

This report addresses to what extent DOD (1) has ensured the 

submission of required reports for equipment-related corrosion projects; 

(2) has collected the information needed to determine whether benefits 

and other measures have been achieved from equipment-related 

corrosion projects; (3) has tracked the status of equipment-related 

corrosion projects; and (4) has identified, shared, and incorporated 

lessons learned from equipment-related corrosion projects into future 

planning to prevent or mitigate corrosion.

To determine the extent to which DOD has ensured the submission of 

required reports for equipment-related corrosion projects, we reviewed 

the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan8 and its 

revised versions, and used the reporting milestones outlined in the plan to 

identify the types of reports required for each project. We obtained project 

information for 128 equipment-related corrosion demonstration projects9

funded by the Corrosion Office for fiscal years 2005 through 2012. We 

requested and reviewed the project documentation—project proposals, 

final reports, and follow-on reports—to determine whether the data and 

related reports met the Corrosion Office’s reporting requirements. We 

interviewed officials from the Corrosion Office, as well as the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force Corrosion Executives, to understand how projects are 

 8

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, Department of Defense, DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. The strategic plan was first issued in November 

2004, and was subsequently revised in 2007, 2008, 2009, and in 2011.

9

We originally received project documentation for 129 projects, from which we selected 

our sample. However, one project was eliminated because it was funded in fiscal year 

2013. 
Page 5 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

tracked if required reports have not been submitted and to determine why 

some required reports were not submitted at the prescribed deadlines. 

We selected a nongeneralizable random systematic sample10 of 43 

projects for further review and conducted an in-depth analysis of the 

projects selected. We used a semistructured interview tool to obtain 

information from project managers to understand reporting requirements 

and time frames as well as challenges and limitations, if any, in 

completing the reports.

To determine the extent to which DOD has collected the information 

needed to determine whether benefits and other measures have been 

achieved from equipment-related corrosion projects, we reviewed key 

documents, including DOD Instruction 5000.67 and DOD’s strategic plan 

to gain an understanding of the roles and responsibilities to develop 

procedures for corrosion planning and implementation and the 

department’s strategy to justify funding for corrosion projects by verifying 

the initial investment of corrosion projects.11 We reviewed all follow-on 

reports provided by the Corrosion Office and the military departments, 

which included 30 follow-on reports on projects funded in fiscal years 

2005 through 2008, to determine whether the military departments have 

collected and reported measures of achievement of their completed 

corrosion projects, including a reassessed ROI to verify the initial 

investment. We interviewed officials from the Corrosion Office as well as 

the military departments’ Corrosion Executives to understand whether 

and how data are collected in order to determine whether the estimated 

ROIs have been achieved. Additionally, from our nongeneralizable 

random systematic sample of 43 projects, we interviewed project 

managers and project personnel to understand how they verify the initial 

investment of corrosion projects and how the assumptions were tracked 

during the first few years of the projects.

 10Our nongeneralizable sample selection methodology ensured selection of a variety of 

projects over all fiscal years, locations, and services. Results from nongeneralizable 

samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population, because in a 

nongeneralizable sample some elements of the population being studied have no chance 

or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. See app. I for more details 

on the sample selection methodology.

11Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on 

DOD Military-equipment and Infrastructure (Feb. 1, 2010).
Page 6 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

To determine the extent to which DOD has tracked the status of 

equipment-related corrosion projects, we reviewed relevant law to 

understand legislative requirements, including the requirement that the 

DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan include a plan to 

transition new corrosion-prevention technologies into operational 

systems.12 We also examined DOD policy, including DOD Instruction 

5000.67, to gain an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the 

Corrosion Office and Corrosion Executives to collect, review, reassess, 

and distribute information on proven methods and products that are 

relevant to prevent corrosion of military equipment. We conducted 

analysis of each of the 43 projects in our sample, specifically reviewing 

the project plans, final reports, and follow-on reports, to determine the 

status of each project, including whether it was recommended to be 

transitioned to service use. We interviewed Corrosion Office officials to 

determine what status information is collected for each project, how such 

information is consolidated, and what analysis is done to oversee the

status and outcomes of each project. We also interviewed Corrosion 

Executives to determine their approach to collect, review, reassess, and 

distribute information on proven methods and products that are relevant 

to prevent corrosion of military equipment.

To determine the extent to which DOD has identified, shared, and 

incorporated lessons learned from equipment-related corrosion projects 

into future planning to prevent or mitigate corrosion, we reviewed DOD 

policy, including DOD Instruction 5000.67, to understand the 

department’s policy to ensure a focused and coordinated approach 

throughout DOD to collect, review, reassess, and distribute information on 

relevant proven methods and products. Also, we reviewed DOD’s 

strategic plan to understand the department’s guidance for capturing, 

documenting, and sharing lessons learned. We analyzed all final reports 

to determine whether lessons learned were being included and the extent 

to which they were being incorporated into future planning and guidance. 

We interviewed Corrosion Office officials and Corrosion Executives to 

gain an understanding of how they ensure lessons learned are collected, 

shared throughout DOD, and incorporated into future projects. Likewise, 

from our nongeneralizable random systematic sample of 43 projects, we 

interviewed project managers and project personnel to gain an 

 1210 U.S.C. §2228(d)(2)(D).
Page 7 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

understanding of how lessons learned are collected, documented, 

shared, and incorporated into future corrosion planning.

We determined that the project documentation, including required reports, 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of determining the extent to 

which DOD ensured completion of required reports, collected the 

information needed to determine whether benefits and other measures 

have been achieved from military-equipment corrosion projects, tracked 

the status of military-equipment corrosion projects, and identified, shared, 

and incorporated lessons learned from military-equipment corrosion 

projects into future planning to prevent or mitigate corrosion. We 

determined that the data used to select the projects included in our 

sample were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We 

provide additional information about our project-selection methodology 

and data-collection efforts in our detailed scope and methodology in 

appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to September 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.

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 2003.13 In November 2004, DOD revised its long-term 

corrosion strategy and issued its DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan. DOD strives to update its strategic plan 

periodically, most recently in February 2011, and officials stated the next 

update is planned for 2013. The purpose of DOD’s strategic plan is to 

articulate policies, strategies, objectives, and plans that will ensure an 

 13Pub. L. No. 107-314, Div. A, § 1067. 

Background

DOD’s Strategic Planning 

and Guidance for 

Corrosion Prevention and 

Control
Page 8 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

effective, standardized, affordable DOD-wide approach to prevent, detect, 

and treat corrosion and its effects on military equipment and 

infrastructure.

In January 2008, the department first issued DOD Instruction 5000.67, 

Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and 

Infrastructure, which was revised and reissued with the same title in 

February 2010. The stated purpose of the instruction is to establish 

policy, assign responsibilities, and provide guidance for the establishment 

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

military equipment and infrastructure. This instruction assigns the military 

departments’ Corrosion Executives responsibility for certain corrosionprevention and control activities in their respective military departments. It 

requires the Corrosion Executives to submit information on proposed 

corrosion projects to the Corrosion Office with coordination through the 

proper military department chain of command, as well as to develop 

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

effective corrosion-prevention and mitigation programs in each military 

department.

According to statute and DOD guidance, the Director of the Corrosion 

Office is responsible for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of DOD 

equipment and infrastructure. The Director’s duties include developing 

and recommending policy guidance on corrosion control, reviewing the 

corrosion-control programs and funding levels proposed by the Secretary 

of each military department during DOD’s annual internal budget review 

process, and submitting recommendations to the Secretary of Defense 

regarding those programs and proposed funding levels. To accomplish its 

oversight and coordination responsibilities, the Corrosion Office has 

ongoing efforts to improve the awareness, prevention, and mitigation of 

corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure, including (1) hosting 

triannual corrosion forums; (2) conducting cost-of-corrosion studies; (3) 

operating two corrosion websites; (4) publishing an electronic newsletter; 

(5) working with industry and academia to develop training courses and 

new corrosion technologies; and (6) providing funding for corrosioncontrol demonstration projects proposed and implemented by the military 

departments. According to the Corrosion Office, these corrosion activities 

enhance and institutionalize the corrosion-prevention and mitigation 

program within DOD. In addition, the Director of the Corrosion Office 

Corrosion Office 

Operations
Page 9 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

periodically holds meetings with the DOD Corrosion Board of Directors 

and serves as the lead on the Corrosion Prevention and Control 

Integrated Product Team.14 The Corrosion Prevention and Control 

Integrated Product Team includes representatives from the military 

departments, the Joint Staff, and other stakeholders who help accomplish 

the various corrosion-control goals and objectives. This team also 

includes the seven Working Integrated Product Teams, which implement 

corrosion prevention and control activities. These seven product teams 

are organized to address the following areas: corrosion policy, processes, 

procedures, and oversight; metrics, impact, and sustainment; 

specifications, standards, and qualification process; training and 

certification; communications and outreach; science and technology; and 

facilities. Appendix A of DOD’s strategic plan contains action plans for 

each product team, including policies, objectives, strategies, planned 

actions, and results to date.

The Corrosion Office began funding military-equipment and infrastructure 

corrosion-prevention projects in fiscal year 2005. Projects, including 

equipment-related projects, are specific corrosion-prevention and 

mitigation efforts, funded jointly by the Corrosion Office and the military 

departments, with the objective of developing and testing new 

technologies. To propose a project for Corrosion Office funding, the 

military departments first refer to requirements in DOD’s strategic plan. 

The requirements include initial submission of a project plan, and, if 

approved, future submissions of final and follow-on reports. The military 

departments’ proposals are evaluated by a panel of experts assembled 

by the Director of the Corrosion Office. The Corrosion Office generally 

funds up to $500,000 per project, and the military departments generally 

pledge matching or complementary funding for each project that they 

propose.15 The level of funding by each military department and the 

estimated return on investment (ROI) are two of the criteria used to 

evaluate the proposed projects. For the project-selection process, the 

 14The Corrosion Executives for each of the military departments are members of the 

Corrosion Board of Directors, and they or their delegates are participants on DOD’s 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team. The Corrosion Board of 

Directors is not identified in DOD’s strategic plan; however, Army and Navy corrosion 

documents acknowledge their Corrosion Executives’ membership on the Corrosion Board. 

15According to Corrosion Office and Corrosion Executive officials, the military 

departments’ matching funds may be more or less than 50 percent of total costs. 

Development of Corrosion 

Projects
Page 10 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

military departments submit preliminary project proposals in the fall and 

submit final project proposals in the spring, and the Corrosion Office 

considers the final proposals for funding. Projects that meet the Corrosion 

Office’s criteria for funding are announced at the end of each fiscal year.

Figure 1 provides an overview of DOD’s process for corrosion projects 

and notes which reports are required in each period.

Figure 1: Overview of DOD’s Process for Corrosion Projects

Notes: The data are from the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan.

a

DOD defines the estimated return-on-investment (ROI) as the ratio of the present value of benefits to 

the present value of the project total cost.

Specifically, project plans include several elements to be considered for 

funding by the Corrosion Office, according to DOD’s strategic plan. The 

project plans include a statement of need, a proposed solution, 

assumptions used to estimate the initial ROI, and a cost-benefit analysis 

of the project’s initial estimate of ROI. DOD’s strategic plan describes 

estimation steps for the cost-benefit analysis to include (1) calculating the 

project costs—such as up-front investment costs and operating and 

support costs, (2) calculating the benefits that are expected to result from 

the project—such as reduction of costs like maintenance hours and 
Page 11 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

inventory costs, and (3) calculating the net present value of the annual 

costs and benefits over the projected service life of the proposed 

technology.16

According to Corrosion Office officials, once a project is approved and 

funded, project managers are typically responsible for overseeing the 

project and completing the reporting requirements. First, the project 

manager begins the research and development phase, also known as the 

demonstration phase. During this phase, project managers and project 

personnel test new technology, both in military laboratory and real-world 

settings. Typically, the demonstration phase takes 1 to 2 years, and the 

Corrosion Office requires submission of a final report upon completion of 

the demonstration.17 In this final report, project managers document test 

conditions, performance of the new technology, lessons learned, and their 

recommendations for the new technology to be transitioned to a military 

service’s use. Finally, project managers submit a follow-on report, which 

is a checklist, to evaluate a project within 2 years after a project is 

completed and the technology has transitioned to use within the military 

department.18 The purpose of the follow-on report is to inform the 

Corrosion Office of the overall outcome of the project and to reassess the 

ROI. The Strategic Plan provides detailed instructions on how to reassess 

the ROI. For example, the ROI reassessments consist of

• reviewing assumptions used earlier in computing the estimated ROI;

• updating the costs and benefits associated with the new technology 

resulting from the project;

• recalculating the ROI based on reassessed data; and

 16DOD’s strategic plan includes a template spreadsheet for project managers to use to 

calculate the net present value of the projects. This template accounts for the time value 

of money by discounting the future benefits expected by the project in terms of their net 

present value, and computes the ratio of these benefits to the present value of the costs. 

The discount rate used by the template is 7 percent, recommended by Office of 

Management and Budget, Circular No. A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for BenefitCost Analysis of Federal Programs (Washington, D.C.: October 1992) for use in analyzing 

benefits and costs of public investments. 

17Corrosion Office officials stated that these reports are typically due within 2 years after 

the receipt of funding for the corrosion demonstration projects. 

18According to Corrosion Office officials, the transition period to implement the 

demonstrated technology in a military department can be up to 1 year and the officials 

expect the follow-on reports to be completed within 5 years of initial project funding. 
Page 12 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

• providing an assessment of the difference, if any, between the 

estimated ROI and the reassessed ROI.

Figure 2 provides a breakout of the number of projects that have reached 

various reporting milestones, as of May 2013. There were 128 

equipment-related corrosion projects funded from fiscal years 2005 

through 2012, in which

• 41 projects had reached the milestone for submitting final and followon reports, including ROI reassessments;

• 88 projects had only reached the milestone for submitting final 

reports; and

• 40 projects were not yet complete, thus they have not reached the 

milestone for submitting final or follow-on reports.

Figure 2: Breakout of the Number of Projects That Reached Various Reporting Milestones (as of May 15, 2013)
Page 13 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

In December 2010,19 we analyzed the extent to which the military 

departments have reassessed the ROI for funded corrosion-prevention 

projects. We found that the military departments did not complete 

required validations of ROI estimates and were unable to fully 

demonstrate the costs and benefits of their corrosion-prevention and 

control projects. We recommended, in part, that DOD fund and complete 

ROI validations. DOD concurred and noted that plans were already 

underway to address this requirement within the Corrosion Office and 

with the Corrosion Executives. Also, in September 2012, we reported that 

the Corrosion Office performs an analysis to determine the average ROI 

estimates for projects that it cites in its annual corrosion-control budget 

report to Congress.20 Additionally, we reported that the Corrosion Office 

did not use the most up-to-date data for the projects’ ROIs or provide 

support for the projects’ average ROI that was cited in its fiscal year 2013 

corrosion-control budget report to Congress. We recommended that DOD 

provide an explanation of its ROI methodology and analysis, including the 

initial and, to the extent available, the reassessed ROI estimates. 

However, DOD did not agree with our recommendation. In its written 

comments, DOD generally restated the methodology included in DOD’s 

strategic plan, which the military departments use to estimate the 

projected ROI of each project. DOD did not provide any additional 

reasons why it did not use current return-on-investment estimates in its 

report to Congress. We reported in April 2013 that DOD has made some 

progress in completing the ROI validations but it needs to continue to 

follow through on completing the validations to fully demonstrate the costs 

and benefits of the corrosion projects.21

In May 2013, we reported that the Corrosion Office had not ensured that 

all reports on the results of its infrastructure-related corrosion projects 

 19GAO, Defense Management: DOD Has a Rigorous Process to Select Corrosion 

Prevention Projects, but Would Benefit from Clearer Guidance and Validation of Returns 

on Investment, GAO-11-84 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2010).

20GAO, Defense Management: The Department of Defense’s Annual Corrosion Budget 

Report Does Not Include Some Required Information, GAO-12-823R (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 10, 2012). 

21See GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013), GAO Action Tracker, accessed April 9, 2013;

http://www.gao.gov/duplication/action_tracker/Corrosion_Prevention/action1.

Prior GAO Work on DOD’s 

Corrosion-Prevention and 

Control Program
Page 14 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

were submitted.22 We recommended four actions to improve DOD’s 

project reporting and tracking, and the accuracy of its ROI data. However, 

DOD partially agreed with our recommendation to take steps to enhance 

the tracking and reporting of its infrastructure-related corrosion projects.

In written comments, DOD stated it is developing a web-based tracking 

tool for the Corrosion Office, Corrosion Executives, and project managers 

to input and extract project-related data. In regard to the recommendation 

that DOD take action to ensure that its records reflect complete, timely, 

and accurate data on the projects’ ROI, DOD partially agreed with the 

recommendation and stated the web-based system would provide data 

including ROI estimates. While DOD cited the web-based system to 

address our recommendations, DOD did not state when the new system 

would be available for use. Further, DOD did not agree with our 

recommendation that the Corrosion Office use its existing authority to 

identify and implement possible options or incentives for addressing 

reasons cited by project-management offices for not meeting reporting 

milestones. In written comments, DOD did not state what actions it would 

take to improve submission of completed reports from the military 

services that DOD’s strategic plan requires for infrastructure-related 

corrosion projects. Also, DOD did not agree with our recommendation to 

revise guidance to clearly define the role of Corrosion Executives to assist 

the Corrosion Office in holding departments’ project-management offices 

accountable for submitting reports in accordance with DOD’s strategic 

plan. DOD stated that further guidance is not necessary as the 

requirements are clearly stated in the strategic plan. All the related GAO 

products are listed at the end of this report.

 22GAO, Defense Infrastructure: DOD Should Improve Reporting and Communication on 

Its Corrosion Prevention and Control Activities, GAO-13-270 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 

2013).
Page 15 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

DOD’s Corrosion Office has collected a majority of required final and 

follow-on reports from project managers on the results of equipmentrelated corrosion projects and is taking steps to obtain outstanding 

reports. As of May 2013, our review found that the military services 

submitted the majority of the required reports. Project managers had 

submitted the required final reports for 55 of the 88 projects (about 63 

percent) funded from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Also, for 27 of the 

41 projects (about 66 percent) that were funded from 2005 through 2007, 

we found that the project managers had submitted the required follow-on 

reports on whether the corrosion-control technologies were effective and 

the overall effect of the projects. Military departments’ Corrosion 

Executives and project managers described various reasons for not 

meeting milestones for all reports, such as personnel turnover, funding, 

and demonstration phases lasting longer than anticipated. To improve the 

collection of reports, DOD is taking steps to obtain outstanding reports.

DOD has invested more than $63 million in 88 equipment-related 

corrosion projects funded from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Project 

managers submitted a majority, but not all, of the required reports on 

whether the corrosion-control technologies were effective and the overall 

effect of the projects.23 The DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 

Strategic Plan24 states that project plans should include a schedule 

milestone for reporting, including final reports and follow-on reports. The 

DOD strategic plan requires a final report at project completion, and 

requires a follow-on report 2 years after project completion and transition 

to use within the military departments. According to Corrosion Office 

officials, these reports provide valuable information on the results of 

corrosion projects and in planning future projects.

Corrosion Office officials stated that project managers must submit final 

reports at project completion, which is typically within 2 years after the 

receipt of the funding of each project. As stipulated in DOD’s strategic 

plan, final reports should include certain content, such as an executive 

 23DOD also invested $21 million in 40 additional corrosion projects funded in fiscal years 

2011 and 2012. These DOD expenditures have not been adjusted for inflation. We did not 

include these 40 projects because their reporting milestones had not occurred. 

24Department of Defense, DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, app. 

D (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

DOD Has Collected a 

Majority of Required 

Reports on the 

Results of EquipmentRelated Corrosion 

Projects and Is Taking 

Steps to Obtain Those 

Outstanding

Project Managers 

Submitted a Majority of

the Required Final and 

Follow-on Reports

About Two-Thirds of Final 

Reports Were Submitted
Page 16 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

summary, lessons learned, recommendations, and conclusions. We 

found that 55 of the 88 required final reports (63 percent) for projects 

funded in fiscal years 2005 through 2010 had been submitted. There was 

variation, by military service, in the number of submitted final reports. For 

example, the Marine Corps had not submitted three-quarters of its final 

reports. The Air Force, in contrast, had submitted all but one final report. 

Table 1 shows the status of final reports submitted by each service for 

equipment-related projects.

Table 1: Status of Final Reports for the 88 Equipment-Related Corrosion Projects 

Funded in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2010

Military 

service

Total number of 

projects

Number of submitted 

final reports 

Number of 

outstanding final 

reports

Army 18 12 6

Navy 41 25 16

Marine Corps 13 3 10

Air Force 16 15 1

Total 88 55 33

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Note: Data as of May 2013.

We found that project managers submitted 27 of the 41 required follow-on 

reports (66 percent). The military services varied in the number of 

outstanding follow-on reports. For example, the Navy had not submitted 

half of its follow-on reports. In contrast, the Army, Marine Corps, and Air 

Force had only one outstanding follow-on report. DOD’s strategic plan 

requires the submission of follow-on reports within 2 years after a project 

is completed and transitioned to use in the military department. According 

to Corrosion Office officials, this transition period includes up to 1 year to 

implement the technology in a military department. Corrosion Office 

officials also told us that they expected the follow-on reports to be 

submitted within 5 years of initial funding. Therefore, follow-on reports for 

41 completed projects funded in fiscal years 2005 through 2007 were due 

on or before the end of fiscal year 2012. DOD’s strategic plan states that 

the follow-on reports should include an assessment of the following 

areas: project documentation, project assumptions, responses to mission 

requirements, performance expectations, and a comparison between the 

initial ROI estimate included in the project plan and the new estimate. 

Table 2 shows the status of follow-on reports submitted by each service.

About Two-Thirds of Follow-on 

Reports Were Submitted
Page 17 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Table 2: Status of Follow-on Reports for the 41 Equipment-Related Corrosion 

Projects Funded in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007

Military 

service

Total number of 

projects

Number of submitted 

follow-on reports 

Number of 

outstanding 

follow-on reports

Army 7 6 1

Navy 21 10 11

Marine Corps 1 0 1

Air Force 12 11 1

Total 41 27 14

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Note: Data as of May 2013.

According to officials in the Corrosion Office, final and follow-on reports 

are used to assess the effectiveness of the corrosion projects and 

determine whether continued implementation of the technology is useful. 

As Corrosion Office officials review project managers’ final reports, they 

stated that they focus on any lessons learned, technical findings, 

conclusions and recommendations, and whether the results from the 

report should trigger follow-on investigations of specific technology and a 

review for broader applications of the technology. Officials stated that 

they review follow-on reports to assure necessary implementation actions 

have been taken and to review changes in the ROI estimates.

Corrosion Office officials stated that they are taking steps to obtain the 

completion and submission of all outstanding reports. For example, 

according to the Corrosion Office, its officials regularly send the military 

departments’ Corrosion Executives a report listing final and follow-on 

reports that have not yet been completed and submitted and requesting 

that the Corrosion Executives follow up with project managers to 

complete the reports. According to Corrosion Executives, they coordinate 

through their department and if the reports have not yet been completed, 

they obtain an explanation and expected completion date and provide the 

information to the Corrosion Office. Finally, according to Corrosion 

Executives, they communicate any delays to the Corrosion Office verbally 

and by e-mail to ensure the Corrosion Office is aware if a demonstration 

period takes longer than originally anticipated or if a project has been 

delayed due to unexpected laboratory or field testing issues

Corrosion officials in the military departments described various reasons 

why project managers did not complete and submit mandatory final and 

Corrosion Officials Have 

Taken Steps to Obtain 

Outstanding Reports
Page 18 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

follow-on reports within expected time frames, including personnel 

turnover, funding, and demonstration phases lasting longer than 

anticipated, all delaying the completion and submission of the reports. For 

example, Air Force and Marine Corps corrosion officials stated that most 

teams retain key personnel throughout each project, but at times, 

turnover results in teams delaying completion of their reports. 

Additionally, Army corrosion officials stated that while their project was 

approved by the Corrosion Office to start its demonstration at the 

beginning of the fiscal year, the demonstration started much later than 

expected because funding from the Corrosion Office for the project was 

delayed due to the use of continuing resolutions to fund government 

operations.25 Finally, the Navy’s Corrosion Executive stated that some 

demonstrations last at least 3 years because the new technology or 

method is tested on at least two carrier deployments, and each 

deployment cycle can last 18 months.

DOD requires the military departments to collect and report key 

information from corrosion projects about new technologies and methods 

to prevent and mitigate corrosion in military equipment to the Corrosion 

Office; however, DOD does not have complete information about the 

benefits of all of its projects and is sometimes unable to determine 

whether projects achieve their estimated ROI. Specifically, the military 

departments are collecting and reporting some measures of achievement 

of the projects, including results, but do not always report details in followon reports about features and benefits of completed projects, such as 

when outcomes prompted changes to specifications, standards, and 

various reference and guidance documents. Further, the military 

departments are not collecting required information on the assumptions 

used to compute the estimated ROI in the project plan, and are unable to 

determine whether the projects are achieving the estimated ROI.

 25A continuing resolution is an appropriation act that provides budget authority for federal 

agencies, specific activities, or both to continue in operation when Congress and the 

President have not completed action on the regular appropriation acts by the beginning of 

the fiscal year. 

DOD Collects 

Information on the 

Benefits of Corrosion 

Projects, but Is Not 

Always Reporting 

Details of the Benefits 

or Determining 

Whether Projects 

Achieve Their 

Estimated ROI
Page 19 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

The military departments have collected and reported measures of 

achievement of completed corrosion projects other than ROI, such as 

when outcomes prompt changes in specifications, standards, technical 

manuals, and other reference or guidance documents. However, the 

departments’ follow-on reports do not always include details of the 

achievements, including specific benefits. DOD Instruction 5000.67 

requires the military departments’ Corrosion Executives to develop 

procedures for corrosion planning, process implementation, management, 

review, and documentation of results. Additionally, the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan requires the submission of a 

checklist, which the department refers to as a follow-on report, to note 

specific information about the corrosion project. The follow-on report, 

which consists of a checklist, shows items to be reviewed on the status 

and the results of corrosion projects that have completed research and 

development, transitioned to service use, and been in use for 2 years. 

Project managers have the option to include comments on details about 

items on the checklist. Appendix II shows a copy of the checklist used for 

project review. According to the strategic plan, the checklist is to focus not 

only on reassessing the ROI, but also on examining and assessing other 

benefits of the project. Project managers are required to review 

documentation, such as specifications, technical manuals, and other 

guidance; implementation, maintenance, and other sustainability costs; 

and actual or intended application of the technology by others. Then, 

project managers are to check “yes” or “no” for each item, but are not 

required to write details about any benefits of the project. DOD’s strategic 

plan allows the project managers the option to provide detailed comments 

in the follow-on report, but does not provide specific guidance requiring 

them to document benefits. Finally, according to Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government, control activities—including 

appropriate documentation of transactions that should be clearly 

documented and keeping documentation readily available for 

examination—are an integral part of an entity’s planning, implementing, 

reviewing, and accountability for stewardship of government resources 

and for achieving effective results.

During our review of all available follow-on reports,26 we found that the 

nearly three-quarters (22 of the 30 follow-on reports) contained 

 26We reviewed all available follow-on reports provided by the Corrosion Office and the 

military departments, which included 30 Army, Navy, and Air Force follow-on reports on 

projects funded in fiscal years 2005-2008. Some follow-on reports remain outstanding, as 

discussed earlier in this report. 

Military Departments Use 

a Checklist to Note Some 

Projects’ Achievements, 

but Do Not Always Report 

Details of the Benefits of 

Projects
Page 20 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

information on some measures of achievement, such as whether new 

technology or methods were incorporated in maintenance manuals, 

technical orders,27 or engineering change proposals.28 These project 

managers for these reports modified the follow-on report to include 

additional details that clearly acknowledge the benefits of the project, 

such as incorporation into specifications, technical manuals, and other 

guidance. For example, a joint Army and Navy project in our sample 

examined aircraft corrosion prevention and control by testing gaskets to 

prevent corrosion of antenna wiring. The project resulted in the Army 

communicating the benefit of the antenna gasket by authorizing its use, 

giving it a part number, and revising a technical manual. Also, the Navy 

assigned the gasket a part number, authorized its use, and revised a 

maintenance manual.

However, we also found that one quarter (8 of 30) of the follow-on reports

contained little to no narrative detail and did not document the benefits of 

the project. For example, an Army project’s follow-on report contained no 

information about achievements, and a Navy project’s follow-on report 

provided little details about the project’s outcomes that could reduce cost 

and reinforce mission readiness. Without specific guidance to require that 

follow-on reports include details of measures of achievements other than 

ROI, including benefits, the Corrosion Office will be missing the 

opportunity to know whether equipment-related corrosion projects have 

achieved outcomes to prevent or mitigate corrosion.

The military departments’ project plans include an initial estimated ROI for 

each equipment-related corrosion project that is based on specific 

assumptions, but the departments’ project managers and project 

personnel have not collected data to determine whether each project 

achieved its estimated ROI. DOD’s strategic plan provides guidance on 

estimating the ROI, collecting information to verify the ROI, and achieving 

the ROI. First, the strategic plan states that project plans include 

assumptions that are used to initially estimate the ROI, and provides a list 

of assumptions that includes: replacement costs and intervals; 

 27Technical orders are Air Force publications that give specific technical directives and 

information on inspection, storage, operation, modification, and maintenance of given Air 

Force items and equipment.

28An Engineering Change Proposal is a document used to describe, justify, and (if 

approved) implement a proposed engineering change.

Military Departments Are 

Not Collecting Information 

to Determine Whether 

Projects Are Achieving 

Estimated ROI
Page 21 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

maintenance costs, including unscheduled maintenance and repair cost; 

labor and other operating costs; and readiness savings. Second, the 

strategic plan provides guidance on collecting information on the 

estimated ROI for corrosion projects that have completed research and 

development and transitioned to service use (i.e., whether a service 

implemented the demonstrated technology or method). Specifically, 

project managers are required to collect information to check on any 

changes to the assumptions used in the initial estimated ROI in order to 

compare, or recompute, the ROI and determine if the ROI is higher than, 

lower than, or as originally estimated. Finally, the strategic plan identifies 

a strategy to justify funding for corrosion projects by verifying the initial 

investment29 of corrosion projects and cites a long-term objective to 

achieve ROI for equipment-related corrosion projects, thus providing a 

metric to assess progress.

During our review, we found that all project plans in our sample included 

required assumptions as well as plans and methods to collect information 

on those assumptions. Our sample included the following examples in 

which the project managers and project personnel estimated the ROI in 

the project plan based on certain assumptions and indicated they would 

collect information when the technology or method was transitioned to 

service use.

• Army—Officials projected an ROI (i.e., benefit) of $46.75 for every

dollar invested in this project to prevent corrosion. The project, funded 

in fiscal year 2008, tested a commercially available dehumidification 

technology to protect the radar system on Patriot missile systems, 

whose internal components generate extreme amounts of heat. 

According to the project plan, the ROI was based on assumptions 

including reduced labor and material maintenance costs. The project 

plan stated that staff would collect ROI-related data by tracking the 

rate of corrosion, including visual inspections of units with and without 

the technology and by an examination of maintenance logs. However, 

according to project personnel, they reassessed only some of the 

original assumptions—such as the annual cost of corrosion 

maintenance costs for the Patriot radar system—and did not track or 

 29The first DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan was issued in 2004, 

prior to funding the first military-equipment corrosion projects that began in 2005. The 

original strategic plan, as well as subsequent revisions in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011, 

identifies a strategy to justify funding for corrosion projects.
Page 22 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

collect data to verify the assumptions used for the estimated ROI in 

the project plan. Thus, they will be unable to compare or recompute 

the ROI as required by the strategic plan.

• Marine Corps—Officials projected an ROI of $189.74 for every dollar 

invested in this project to prevent corrosion. The project, funded in 

fiscal year 2010, tested supplemental coatings to protect tactical and 

armored ground weapon systems against corrosion. According to the 

project plan, the ROI was based on assumptions including testing on 

the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle system, a 50 

percent reduction in annual maintenance costs, and a 15-year service 

life. The project plan stated that data would be collected by annually 

monitoring weapon systems with and without these particular coatings 

to verify the estimated ROI in the project plan. However, according to 

project personnel, they plan only to provide an update of the original 

assumptions. Thus, they will be unable to compare or recompute the 

ROI as required by the strategic plan.

• Air Force and Navy—Officials of the joint project predicted an ROI of 

$61.32 for every dollar invested in this project to prevent corrosion. 

The project, funded in fiscal year 2005, tested the use of aerosol paint 

cans to address potential corrosion of aircraft coatings and meet the 

requirements of rapid cure and rapid application in austere 

environments when spray-application equipment is not available.30

According to the project plan, the ROI was based on assumptions 

including the estimated cost of paint and repair, the expectation to 

save approximately 5 percent of the paint cost in reductions in 

material preparation and clean-up, and decreased manpower 

requirements associated with applying paints and repairing corrosion. 

According to the project manager, he could collect certain data, such 

as how many cans were ordered through the supply system, but could 

not determine if personnel purchased aerosol paint cans from other 

sources to estimate savings. Thus, they will be unable to compare or 

recompute the ROI as required by the strategic plan.

Additionally, project managers and project personnel in our sample stated 

that they have not collected information on the assumptions used in the 

initial estimated ROI to compare or recompute the ROI, such as 

 30According to the final report for this project, there still remains a need for brush or roller 

applied coating systems for maintainers who must repair and repaint aircraft in locations 

where local environmental regulations restrict the use of aerosol-applied coatings.
Page 23 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

information on the quantity of military equipment that has transitioned to 

service use. Rather, the Corrosion Executives and the majority of project 

managers and project personnel whom we interviewed stated that their 

procedure has been to reassess only the accuracy of the assumptions of 

the estimated ROIs.

Further, Corrosion Executives as well as project managers and project 

personnel for 40 of the 43 projects in our sample (or 93 percent) stated 

that they have not collected information to verify the initial investment and 

determine if a project is achieving the estimated ROI stated in each 

project plan because of the difficulties in doing so. For example, some 

project managers and project personnel explained that they rely on repair 

personnel to collect and record data on the performance of a new 

technology or method, which would provide data to verify the initial 

investment in corrosion projects. However, according to Corrosion 

Executives, project managers, and project personnel, the repair 

personnel do not have a consistent way to collect and record the data. 

Also, some project managers and project personnel stated it is difficult to 

monitor progress of a new corrosion-related technology or method 

because the maintenance and repair community does not always note in 

maintenance records the reason for repair or replacement. For example, 

officials on an Air Force project noted that when electronic circuit cards 

failed and were removed from aircraft, repair personnel removed them 

and inserted new ones, but did not take the time to figure out why they 

failed (such as whether sand and salt corroded the electronic circuit 

cards). In some cases, the new technology or method goes beyond 

affecting one military service, and effective recordkeeping would involve 

the other services tracking, collecting, and reporting back information on 

their use of the new technology or method, but we found that such 

recordkeeping is not done consistently. Further, some equipment-related 

projects are driven by environmental concerns, such as those aimed at 

finding an alternative chemical to use to prevent corrosion. According to 

officials, these concerns, such as measuring the environmental effect on 

reducing pollution, are difficult to measure.

Consequently, the military departments and DOD management have 

been unable to determine whether the projects are achieving their 

estimated financial benefits. Officials from the Corrosion Office 

acknowledged that project managers have not followed DOD’s strategic 

plan regarding collecting information to verify whether projects are 

achieving the benefits initially estimated in project plans because of 

challenges in collecting and monitoring relevant data. Corrosion Office 

officials stated that their original intent was for the project managers to 
Page 24 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

monitor the assumptions and collect updated information, but now the 

Corrosion Office officials recognize that project managers did not always 

collect all the needed data. On the basis of the identified challenges, 

Corrosion Office officials stated that they plan to revise the strategic plan 

to eliminate the guidance on validating the ROI and to provide revised 

guidance on how the project managers should be reassessing the ROI. 

They stated that the revision is planned for late 2013.

DOD has taken steps to improve oversight of its equipment-related 

corrosion projects, such as revising its DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan to provide additional guidance on reporting 

requirements. However, DOD does not have a comprehensive overview 

of the status of all equipment-related corrosion projects. While the reports 

provide the status for each project, GAO found that the Corrosion Office 

does not consolidate information to monitor the status of all these 

projects, such as if a project has not transitioned to service use or has 

been discontinued.31 Further, we found that project managers vary in how 

they reported the ROI for discontinued projects.

DOD’s Corrosion Office has taken steps to develop and revise policies 

and guidance to help improve the management and oversight of 

equipment-related corrosion projects. For example, the Corrosion Office 

developed, and has subsequently revised the DOD Corrosion Prevention 

and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Also, officials from the Corrosion Office 

stated that they have updated reporting requirements to include quarterly 

status reports on the technical, programmatic, and financial status of the 

projects. Further, Corrosion Office officials explained that the 

establishment of the military department Corrosion Executives has helped 

improve their management of corrosion programs. Starting in 2009, each 

military department designated a Corrosion Executive to be the senior 

official in the department with responsibility for coordinating corrosionprevention and control program activities.32 For example, Corrosion 

 31Hereafter, in this report, these projects that have not been recommended for transition 

will be referred to as “discontinued” projects.

32The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 

No. 110-417) required each military department to designate a Corrosion Executive.

DOD Has Taken Steps 

to Improve Oversight, 

but Does Not Have a 

Comprehensive 

Overview of the 

Status of All 

Equipment-Related 

Corrosion Projects

Corrosion Office Has 

Taken Steps to Improve 

Oversight of EquipmentRelated Corrosion Projects
Page 25 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Executives and the Corrosion Office do an annual review of equipmentrelated corrosion projects to review project status and transition as well as 

deadlines for final reports, follow-on reports, and ROI reassessments. 

According to the Corrosion Office, each Corrosion Executive coordinates 

through the respective military department’s chain of command to provide 

information on corrosion projects to the Director of the Corrosion Office.

Further, quarterly status reports are required starting the first week of the 

fiscal quarter after the contract award and every 3 months thereafter until 

the final report is submitted,33 and officials from the Corrosion Office also 

conduct an annual review of each project. Finally, the military 

departments have developed and implemented service-specific strategic 

plans for corrosion prevention.34

The Corrosion Office collects reported details of individual corrosion 

projects, including some status information, but does not consolidate the 

information for an overview of the status of all its projects, which is a key 

part of its oversight role. Project managers submit many project details in 

their reports to the Corrosion Office, such as whether a project has been 

recommended for transition to service use and the status of the transition; 

whether a project has been recommended for transition to service use but 

did not transition; and whether a project has not been recommended for 

transition or discontinued. Corrosion Office officials stated that they 

maintain some consolidated data in a spreadsheet, such as the project’s 

identification number, fiscal year, funded amount, and ROI. However, the 

office has not consolidated all key information about the projects so that 

officials can regularly monitor their status and plan to implement new 

corrosion-prevention technology or methods into the military departments’

operations. Instead, most key information on the status is listed in 

individual final and follow-on reports.

 33From fiscal years 2005 through 2009, DOD’s strategic plan required the military 

departments to provide bimonthly updates for all incomplete corrosion projects. Since 

fiscal year 2010, the Corrosion Office has required updates on a quarterly basis. 

34H.R. Rep. No. 112-78, at 104-105 (May 17, 2011). GAO was directed to review the 

military departments’ corrosion strategies. See GAO, Defense Management: Additional 

Information Needed to Improve Military Departments’ Strategies for Corrosion Prevention 

and Control, GAO-13-379 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2013).

The Corrosion Office Does 

Not Consolidate 

Information to Monitor the 

Status of Its Projects
Page 26 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

DOD Instruction 5000.67 requires that the Corrosion Office develop an 

overarching, long-term corrosion-prevention and mitigation strategy. The 

instruction also requires that the Corrosion Office implement programs to 

ensure that military departments throughout DOD take a focused and 

coordinated approach to collect, review, reassess, and distribute 

information on proven methods and products that are relevant to prevent 

corrosion of military equipment. Also, the instruction requires Corrosion 

Executives to develop procedures for corrosion planning and 

implementation, and to review, manage, and document results.

During our review of the 43 projects in our sample, we found 14 

(approximately 33 percent) of the projects performed well and each one’s 

technology or method was implemented for use by a military department, 

and 7 (approximately 16 percent) of the projects performed well and were 

recommended for use by a military department but the military 

department was not using it. We found varying reasons for military 

departments not using a proven technology or method, such as the need 

for additional field testing. Finally, we found 4 (approximately 9 percent) of 

the projects did not perform as expected during the demonstration phase, 

and were discontinued. The remaining projects in our sample, 18 

(approximately 42 percent of the projects), were still in the demonstration 

phase. However, Corrosion Office officials stated that they could not 

readily provide information on the status of the projects’ implementation, 

including whether projects were demonstrated successfully; were 

recommended for a military department’s use but are not yet in use; or 

had been discontinued. To provide an overview of the detailed status of 

all projects, the officials stated that they would have to review each final 

report and compile a list because the Corrosion Office does not use a tool 

or method to consolidate such information when the office receives each 

project’s report. Without a mechanism to consolidate projects’ status to 

facilitate monitoring of whether the projects’ demonstrated technology or 

methods are being used by military departments, the Corrosion Office 

and the Corrosion Executives may not have timely information to know 

whether the technology demonstrations produced proven methods and 

products to prevent the corrosion of military equipment.

During our review, we found that project managers varied in how they 

reported discontinued projects and how they reported reassessed ROIs 

for projects that had technology or methods recommended for a military 

department’s use but were not being used. According to the DOD 

strategic plan, a final report is required at project completion and is to 

include certain content, such as recommendations on whether to 

Project Managers Vary in 

How They Report 

Discontinued Projects, 

Including the ROI
Page 27 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

transition the technology or method to use in the military department. The 

plan also requires the submission of follow-on reports within 2 years after 

a project is completed and transitioned to use in the military department, 

and is to include a reassessed ROI. In reviewing project reports, we found 

seven instances of projects that had technology or methods 

recommended for a military department’s use, but were not being used; 

however, the Corrosion Office provided documentation that the ROIs 

were reassessed for three of the projects. In one example, a follow-on 

report showed one project’s results were awaiting validated data on 

benefits so it had not yet been implemented by a military department. By 

contrast, Corrosion Office records showed the project’s ROI was verified 

as a cost benefit of $141.30 for every dollar invested in this project, which 

suggested that the office considered the project to be implemented. 

Additionally, we identified four projects that did not perform as expected 

during the demonstration phase and were discontinued. According to 

Corrosion Office officials, project managers still needed to submit followon reports, including verifying the estimated ROI. In interviews with 

project personnel, we found differences in how the military departments 

reported reassessed ROIs for discontinued projects in the follow-on 

reports.35 For example, the Air Force reported the reassessed ROI for 

discontinued projects as zero, while the Army reported the reassessed 

ROI for discontinued projects to be the same as in the initial project plan. 

Army officials stated that they believed they were following DOD guidance 

in how they report ROI for discontinued projects. However, we found no 

guidance in DOD’s strategic plan about how to report the ROI when a 

project is discontinued, and Corrosion Office officials confirmed that they 

have not provided such guidance. Corrosion Officials were unaware of 

specific discontinued projects and were unable to readily provide us a list 

of these projects. Without guidance to specify how project managers 

should report the ROI for discontinued projects, the Corrosion Office may 

receive varying reports about ROIs and have an incomplete picture of the 

success of projects.

 35On the basis of our review, we found that the Marine Corps had not discontinued any 

projects.
Page 28 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

The military departments have identified lessons learned from their 

equipment-related corrosion projects and shared some lessons with 

corrosion-related personnel; however, DOD has no centralized and 

secure database or other source to share lessons from all project final 

and follow-on reports, including those with sensitive information. The 

military departments have incorporated some lessons from proven 

technologies or methods into maintenance guidance and repair 

procedures for military equipment. DOD uses both formal and informal 

methods to share lessons learned from corrosion projects, and is in the 

early stages of developing a single database that can share the lessons 

from final and follow-on reports, and do so in a secure system that can 

archive sensitive information about projects.

The military departments have identified lessons learned from their 

projects to prevent or mitigate corrosion of military equipment. These 

lessons are described in the projects’ final reports. Further, military 

departments have used the lessons learned to change maintenance 

guidance and repair procedures in some cases.

The military departments have followed guidance in DOD’s strategic plan 

to include lessons learned in the final report for each corrosion project.36

We found that project managers and project personnel were identifying 

lessons learned in the demonstration phase in lab books, journals and 

final reports. Also, during our review of all submitted final reports, we 

found that every final report included lessons learned. Additionally, project 

managers and project personnel stated that they identify lessons learned 

by an examination of testing conditions, observations and analysis of 

successful and unsuccessful trials, and examining problems. For 

example, one Navy project was successful in the lab, but the project 

manager found that personnel in the field were not completing all the 

steps necessary to make a particular protective paint coating effective to 

prevent corrosion. The project was discontinued because the corrosion 

 36GAO’s prior work states that a lesson learned is knowledge or understanding gained by 

experience. The experience may be positive, such as a successful test or exercise, or 

negative, such as a mishap or failure. From GAO, Federal Real Property: Interagency

Security Committee Should Implement a Lessons Learned Process, GAO-12-901

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012). 

DOD Has 

Incorporated Lessons 

from EquipmentRelated Corrosion 

Projects, but Does 

Not Have a 

Comprehensive 

Database to Share 

Lessons of All 

Projects

DOD Has Identified and 

Recorded Lessons in 

Maintenance Guidance and 

Procedures

Identifying and Recording 

Lessons Learned
Page 29 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

method would not be successful in the field. Further, project managers 

told us that they collect these lessons learned throughout project 

demonstration, by recording analysis in lab books, which become part of 

the laboratory record, as well as collecting data in the field. For example, 

the project manager and project personnel who examined corrosion of 

electronic circuit cards due to sand and salt stated that they collected 

lessons learned while the weapon system was deployed. Also, they 

collected lessons learned as the weapon systems were returned to their 

home station, and found humidity at the home station greatly increased 

corrosion, an unexpected result that was documented in the final report.

The military departments have incorporated lessons learned in guidance 

or other information that will allow them to use the proven methods and 

products. All project plans in our sample included plans or methods to 

transition projects to military department use and incorporate what they 

learned to change maintenance and repair procedures or allow the use of 

new technology. During our review of final and follow-on reports, we 

found that lessons learned from equipment-related corrosion projects 

were incorporated primarily through the military performance 

specifications; proposals for engineering changes; services’ technical 

orders; or through DOD-wide military specifications. For example,

• A Navy project developed cost-effective, corrosion-resistant boxes to 

protect electrical equipment, indicator lights and connectors used on 

Navy ships. The Navy issued a message, established stock numbers, 

made drawings, and changed specifications to replace the boxes.

• An Army project tested a protective covering for cable connectors on 

the Patriot Missile System. As a result of the demonstration, the 

Army’s Aviation and Missile Command’s corrosion officials 

recommended the covers be part of repair kits and installed during 

scheduled depot overhauls. Project personnel are working to develop 

an Engineering Change Proposal to incorporate kits for these 

protective coverings into repair procedures at an Army depot, and 

plan to coordinate the assignment of National Stock Numbers for the 

kits when the Engineering Change Proposal is approved.

• An Air Force project tested and evaluated several rapid-cure 

roller/brush and aerosol-applied coating systems for airplanes. The 

final report recommended the aerosol system for implementation. As 

a result of the project, the Air Force modified a technical order to 

authorize the use of aerosol cans to apply protective coatings to an 

aircraft.

Incorporating Lessons Learned
Page 30 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Finally, changes to DOD-wide military specifications are another way for 

lessons learned to be incorporated. For example, the Air Force created a 

DOD standard to be used by industry and DOD for screening new 

material technologies. Similarly, the Marine Corps created a DOD 

standard to provide protective coatings for tactical and armored vehicles.

In addition, some lessons learned were incorporated into planning for 

future projects. For example, a Marine Corps project was examining 

improved methods to remove specialty coatings on vehicles in a corrosion 

repair facility or depot. The process can take 32 hours to complete, during 

which time the vehicle is unavailable for other repair activities. According 

to the project manager, the project benefitted from lessons learned during 

a prior Marine Corps project examining coating repairs. In another 

example, the Air Force established a requirement for outdoor testing of 

protective coatings for aircraft after several project managers found that 

some protective coatings yielded contradictory results in the laboratory as 

compared to outdoor exposure.

DOD has several methods for informally or formally sharing some lessons 

learned from corrosion projects. Most lessons learned are shared 

informally through conferences, working groups, and personal contacts, 

according to Corrosion Executives, project managers, and project 

personnel. While DOD has taken steps for a structured, formal process to 

share information, such as by establishing a DOD corrosion website and 

archiving final reports in the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) 

database,37 neither the website nor the database has all lessons learned 

from equipment-related corrosion projects.

Military departments’ Corrosion Executives, project managers, and 

project personnel stated that lessons learned are shared in specific ways, 

such as through past conferences, working groups, and personal 

contacts. For example:

• Conferences: The Corrosion Office has hosted the triannual DOD 

Corrosion Forum—involving the military departments, private industry, 

academia, and other government agencies—to share information on 

 37According to DTIC’s website, DTIC serves the DOD community as the largest central 

resource for DOD and government-funded scientific, technical, engineering, and businessrelated information.

DOD Has Informal and 

Formal Methods to Share 

Some Lessons Learned

Informal Methods for Sharing 

Lessons Learned
Page 31 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

the negative effects of corrosion on readiness and safety. Corrosion 

officials whom we interviewed emphasized the importance of sharing 

lessons learned at past conferences. Conferences have also included 

briefings on project ideas and project submissions. For example, the 

Air Force Corrosion Managers Conference included a briefing on the 

results of a project on rapid-cure coating for aircraft. However, 

according to a 2013 DOD budget memorandum, conferences have 

been curtailed except those for mission-critical activities and must be 

approved by component heads or senior officials designated by the 

component head. Subsequently, DOD plans to hold for the first time 

the DOD Corrosion Conference 2013 by means of a webinar.

• Working Groups: The Corrosion Office has a number of Working 

Integrated Product Teams to discuss and share corrosion information, 

such as the Corrosion Policy, Processes, Procedures, and Oversight; 

Communications and Outreach; and Science and Technology teams. 

Further, officials supporting weapon systems have working groups 

examining corrosion for their specific systems. For example, Air Force 

officials examining the use of specific gaskets on C-17 aircraft 

presented the project’s results, including lessons learned, to the C-17 

Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board. Furthermore, these Air Force 

officials explained that most major weapon systems have a Corrosion 

Prevention Advisory Board, which consists of a team of engineers, 

depot personnel, and industry officials, as a best practice to discuss 

technology issues related to corrosion and corrosion management for 

their weapon system.

• Personal Contacts: During interviews with project managers and 

project personnel, we found examples of sharing corrosion 

information through emails, phone calls, and coordination on joint 

projects. For example, Marine Corps corrosion officials stated that 

because they share equipment with the Army through acquisition and 

other processes, they are knowledgeable of Army lessons learned 

from corrosion projects.

DOD has established formal methods to share many lessons learned with 

officials working to prevent or mitigate corrosion of military equipment, 

such as through websites or databases. In 2003, the department 

established a DOD corrosion website38 that includes an online library, 

 38DOD’s corrosion website is www.corrdefense.org. 

Formal Methods to Share 

Lessons
Page 32 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

information on submitting project plans, some nonsensitive final reports,39

and a members-only section for sharing working-group findings. 

Additionally, project managers and project personnel stated that they post 

some information on lessons learned on service-specific corrosion 

websites, including the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office 

website and the Army Aviation and Missile Command Corrosion Program 

Office website. Further, according to corrosion officials and project

managers, the final reports are being archived, as required, at DTIC. We 

also found lessons learned are shared in departmental databases, such 

as the Naval Surface Warfighter Center database.

DOD officials have methods to share some lessons from projects, such 

as information in final reports, but do not have a centralized and secure 

database in which corrosion personnel across DOD can access lessons 

from reports about all completed corrosion projects, including projects 

involving sensitive information. DOD has archives of final reports in DTIC, 

but the DTIC system does not include other information about corrosion 

projects, such as follow-on reports that contain information on the 

implementation of the projects. The DOD website has some final reports,

but it does not post other information that is considered sensitive. The 

establishment of the website is cited as an accomplishment for one of the 

goals in the DOD strategic plan.40 However, currently DOD has not 

consolidated all project data and outcomes in a way that is available and 

accessible to all relevant personnel.

DOD’s strategic plan states that DOD and the military departments should 

use rapid and effective web-based strategies for communicating and 

sharing best practices, including a centralized database to capture 

corrosion-related technical information across the services to enhance 

communication, leverage problems, and minimize duplication. Also, DOD 

Instruction 5000.67 requires that the Corrosion Office’s long-term strategy 

 39Some of the reports have distribution limitations or include proprietary information.

40According to the strategic plan, the website enables the accomplishment of numerous 

objectives including supporting and improving communication, collaboration, and 

coordination within the corrosion community; increasing the effectiveness of corrosion 

prevention and control; research and operations identification and dissemination of 

lessons learned; developing, maintaining, and expanding the web-based information 

aggregation and sharing capabilities of the website; and maintaining a content-rich, 

collaborative enabled, on-line environment for all members.

DOD Does Not Have a 

Comprehensive Database 

to Share Lessons from All 

Completed Projects, 

Including Sensitive 

Information
Page 33 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

for corrosion prevention and mitigation of military equipment provide for 

the implementation of programs, including supporting databases, to 

ensure a focused and coordinated approach throughout DOD to collect, 

review, reassess, and distribute information on relevant proven methods 

and products. Finally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government states that federal program managers should have pertinent 

information distributed in a form and time frame that permits them to 

perform their duties efficiently.41

According to Corrosion Executives, project managers, and project 

personnel, DOD and the military departments could benefit from a 

coordinated, centralized approach to archive all relevant information, 

including sensitive information that should not be disclosed to the general 

public, on methods and products proven to prevent or mitigate corrosion 

of military equipment. Also, a Defense Science Board report on corrosion 

control stated “when properly implemented, lessons learned from the 

corrosion program will drive future design, acquisition, and performance 

specifications.”

42 To meet its goal to share lessons throughout the 

department, DOD has begun work to develop a database that would 

contain relevant information, including lessons learned, on all projects 

and their outcomes—including sensitive or proprietary information.

However, officials at the Corrosion Office stated they are in the early 

stages of developing the database and are unsure when it will be 

completed. For example, they are still considering how the information 

would be accessible in a secure way, such as through a nonpublic portal 

of its corrosion website or through another DOD portal. Until a 

comprehensive, centralized, and secure database is developed that 

includes lessons learned from all completed corrosion projects, including 

those with sensitive information, officials from DOD’s corrosion 

community will not have full and complete information on lessons learned, 

including proven methods or products to prevent or mitigate corrosion of 

military equipment.

 41GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

42Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 

Defense Science Board Report on Corrosion Control (Washington, D.C.: October 2004).
Page 34 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

DOD relies on the outcomes of its corrosion projects to reduce the lifecycle costs of its military equipment through the timely sharing of 

information about successful projects with all relevant officials in DOD’s 

corrosion community. Corrosion Office officials have provided assistance 

to project managers for the submission of required reports on whether 

specific corrosion-control technologies are effective; however, project 

managers have not consistently followed DOD’s strategic plan regarding 

collecting and reporting information to verify whether all projects are 

achieving benefits other than the ROIs that were estimated in project 

plans. Without specific guidance to require that follow-on reports include 

details of measures of achievements other than ROI, including benefits, 

the Corrosion Office will be missing the opportunity to know whether 

equipment-related corrosion projects have achieved outcomes to prevent 

or mitigate corrosion. Further, the Corrosion Office has not consolidated 

information on projects’ status, such as whether a project was 

recommended for transition to military departments’ use or has been 

discontinued, and was unaware of which projects were discontinued. 

Without a mechanism or tool to assist in monitoring and consolidating 

status information about whether the technology or method demonstrated 

by each equipment-related corrosion project has transitioned to the 

military departments’ use, the Corrosion Office and the Corrosion 

Executives may not have timely information about whether the corrosion 

projects produced proven methods and products to prevent the corrosion 

of military equipment. Also, the Corrosion Office may not have a complete 

understanding of the success of projects if the military departments do not 

have specific guidance for reporting the ROIs of discontinued projects, 

and therefore report the ROIs in varying ways. Finally, DOD has not 

consolidated all lessons learned in a way that is available and accessible 

to all relevant personnel. Until a comprehensive, centralized, and secure 

database is developed that includes lessons learned from all completed 

corrosion projects, officials from DOD’s corrosion community will not have 

full and complete information on lessons learned, including proven 

methods or products to prevent or mitigate corrosion of military 

equipment.

We are making four recommendations to improve DOD’s corrosionprevention and control program:

To enhance DOD in its oversight of the status and potential benefits of its 

equipment-related corrosion projects, we recommend that the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics require 

the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 35 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

• Revise the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan or 

other guidance to require that the military departments include in all 

follow-on reports the details of measures of achievement other than 

ROI, such as the features, results, and potential benefits of the 

project.

To enhance tracking of DOD’s equipment-related corrosion projects, we 

recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics require the Director, Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight Office, to

• develop a tool or mechanism to assist in monitoring and consolidating 

the status information for each equipment-related corrosion project 

about whether the demonstrated technology or method has 

transitioned to military departments’ use.

To ensure consistent reporting for all equipment-related corrosion 

projects, we recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics require the Director, Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight Office, to

• revise guidance to specify how project managers should report the 

ROI for discontinued projects.

To enhance planning for corrosion prevention and mitigation, we 

recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics require the Director, Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight Office, to

• establish a time frame for completing the comprehensive and secure 

database so that all relevant officials of DOD’s corrosion community 

have access to the proven technology methods, products, and other 

lessons learned from all corrosion projects to prevent or mitigate 

corrosion of military equipment.

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

comments, which are reprinted in appendix III, DOD concurred with two of 

our four recommendations. DOD partially concurred with one 

recommendation, and based on additional information provided in its

comments, we revised that recommendation. Finally, DOD did not concur 

with one recommendation. 

DOD concurred with our second recommendation that the Director, 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, enhance tracking of DOD’s 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 36 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

equipment-related corrosion projects by developing a tool or mechanism 

to assist in monitoring and consolidating the status information for each 

equipment-related corrosion project about whether the demonstrated 

technology or method has transitioned to military departments’ use. As 

DOD notes in its comments, the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office 

will monitor transition status using the corrosion Engineering Resource 

Data Management (ERDM2) database program currently under 

development. According to DOD, ERDM2 is designed to collect, classify,

and file data on all aspects of corrosion projects and to provide the DOD 

corrosion community access to information and tailored status reports.

DOD concurred with our fourth recommendation that the Director, 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight, could enhance planning for corrosion 

prevention and mitigation by establishing a time frame for completing the 

comprehensive and secure database so that all relevant officials of 

DOD’s corrosion community have access to the proven technology 

methods, products, and other lessons learned from all corrosion projects 

to prevent or mitigate corrosion of military equipment. DOD stated in its 

comments that the development of the comprehensive and secure 

ERDM2 data-management tool is underway and is a high priority. 

According to DOD, development and deployment will occur incrementally 

and simultaneously to ensure that needs of all stakeholders are met. 

DOD anticipates that the initial phase of ERDM2 will contain data from 

completed projects and will be in place by December 31, 2013.

DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation in the draft report 

that the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, revise guidance 

to specify how the military departments’ Corrosion Executives and project 

managers should report the ROI for discontinued projects to ensure 

consistent reporting for all equipment-related corrosion projects. In 

partially concurring with this recommendation, DOD stated that the 

military departments’ Corrosion Executives do not actively execute 

projects or engage in the calculation of the ROI process, so the next 

revision of DOD’s Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan will 

address only how project managers will calculate and report ROI on 

discontinued projects to the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight. 

While we found that the military departments’ Corrosion Executives 

review and coordinate through their respective chain of command to 

provide information on corrosion projects to the Director of the Corrosion 

Office, we agree that the military executives do not actively execute the 

corrosion projects or engage in the calculation of the ROI. Thus, we have 

revised the recommendation to include only the project managers. 
Page 37 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

DOD did not concur with our first recommendation that the Director, 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, revise the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan or other guidance to require that 

the military departments include in all follow-on reports the details of 

measurements of achievement other than ROI, such as the features, 

results, and potential benefits of the project. In its response, DOD stated

that the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan currently 

provides sufficient guidance in this regard and believes it is not necessary 

to revise this guidance. DOD cited instructions in section 3, appendix D of 

the strategic plan about the 2 year follow-on reporting, which is to include 

a focus on assessing the ROI computed at project completion, as well as 

other features and benefits of the projects. Additionally, this appendix 

accompanying the strategic plan includes instructions on completing and 

submitting a checklist, also regarded as the follow-on report, to fulfill the 

requirements. We noted in our report that the checklist for the follow-on 

report that shows items to be reviewed on the status of the projects 

allows project managers to check “yes” or “no” for each item, but project 

managers are not required to write details about any benefits of the 

project. During our review, we found that about three-fourths of the 

completed checklists for the follow-on reports were modified by project 

managers on their own accord to include some measures of achievement 

of completed projects, such as when outcomes prompted changes to 

military equipment specifications and standards. However, one-fourth of 

the follow-on reports did not include information about features and 

benefits of completed projects. Specifically, we found that 8 of 30 followon reports contained little to no narrative detail because there was no 

requirement to do so. While DOD’s strategic plan provides instructions for 

the 2 year follow-on reporting, the plan with its accompanying instructions 

for completing the follow-on reports does not require that project 

managers include details about any benefits of the project. We maintain 

that DOD could enhance its oversight of corrosion projects by providing 

additional, specific guidance to require that follow-on reports include 

details of measures of achievements other than ROI, including project 

benefits, to allow the Corrosion Office to have additional information 

about whether equipment-related corrosion projects have achieved 

outcomes to prevent or mitigate corrosion.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Director of 

the DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight; and other interested 
Page 38 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

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 39 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

ensured the submission of required reports for equipment-related 

corrosion projects, we reviewed the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan1 and its revised versions, and used the reporting 

milestones outlined in the plan to identify the types of reports required for 

each project. We originally received project documentation for 129 

projects, from which we selected our sample. However, one project was 

eliminated because it was funded in fiscal year 2013. We obtained project 

information for 128 equipment-related corrosion demonstration projects 

funded by the DOD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office (hereafter 

referred to as the Corrosion Office) for fiscal years 2005 through 2012. 

We requested and reviewed the project documentation—project 

proposals, final reports, and follow-on reports—to determine if the data 

and related reports met the Corrosion Office’s reporting requirements. For 

the purposes of our work in reviewing projects funded in fiscal years 2005 

through 2010, we considered a final or follow-on report to be submitted as 

required if the Corrosion Office had a copy of the report in its records 

system, and confirmed the accuracy with the Corrosion Control and 

Prevention Executives (hereafter referred to as Corrosion Executives). 

We did not consider the timeliness of the submitted reports. We received 

project documentation through May 15, 2013. Additionally, for follow-on 

reports, we could assess only the projects funded in fiscal years 2005 

through 2007 because the DOD strategic plan’s milestone requires 

submission of follow-on reports for completed projects within 2 years after 

the projects have been completed and transitioned to use within the 

military departments. We determined that the project-reporting data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of determining the extent to which the 

military departments met the Corrosion Office’s reporting requirements. 

We did not assess elements of the actual report. We interviewed officials 

from the Corrosion Office, as well as the Army, Navy, and Air Force 

Corrosion Executives, to understand the process of what reports are 

required and when; challenges and limitations, if any, in completing the

reports; and how projects are tracked if required reports have not been 

submitted. Further, we interviewed these officials to determine why the 

required reports were not submitted. Also, we determined what actions, if 

any, they planned to take to complete the reports. Moreover, we selected 

 1

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, Department of Defense, DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. The strategic plan was first issued in November 

2004, and was subsequently revised in 2007, 2008, 2009, and in 2011.

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

Page 40 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

a nongeneralizable sample of 43 projects2 for further review and 

conducted an in-depth analysis of the projects selected. We selected the 

sample using a random systematic approach. We ordered the population 

first by service, then by fiscal year, location, and project manager. Next 

we selected a random starting point and then selected every third project.

Our nongeneralizable, sample-selection methodology ensured selection 

of a variety of projects over all fiscal years, locations, and services. We 

used a semistructured interview tool to obtain information from project 

managers and project personnel to understand reporting requirements 

and time frames as well as challenges and limitations, if any, that they 

had in completing the reports. We also reviewed prior GAO work on 

DOD’s corrosion-prevention and mitigation program.3

To determine the extent to which DOD has collected the information 

needed to determine whether benefits and other measures have been 

achieved from equipment-related corrosion projects, we reviewed key 

documents, including DOD Instruction 5000.674 and DOD’s strategic plan. 

We examined DOD Instruction 5000.67 to gain an understanding of the 

roles and responsibilities to develop procedures for corrosion planning 

and implementation, and to review, manage, and document project 

results. We examined DOD’s strategic plan to gain an understanding of 

the department’s strategy to justify funding for corrosion projects by 

verifying the initial investment of corrosion projects and guidance on 

collecting information to check on any changes to the assumptions used 

in the initial estimated return on investment (ROI) in order to compare, or 

 2

Our nongeneralizable sample-selection methodology ensured selection of a variety of 

projects over all fiscal years, locations, and services. Results from nongeneralizable 

samples cannot be used to make inferences about a population, because in a 

nongeneralizable sample some elements of the population being studied have no chance 

or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample.

3

See GAO, Defense Management: DOD Has a Rigorous Process to Select Corrosion 

Prevention Projects, but Would Benefit from Clearer Guidance and Validation of Returns 

on Investment, GAO-11-84 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2010); Defense Management: The 

Department of Defense’s Annual Corrosion Budget Report Does Not Include Some 

Required Information, GAO-12-823R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012); 2013 Annual 

Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve 

Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013), 

http://www.gao.gov/duplication/action_tracker/Corrosion_Prevention/action1; and Defense 

Infrastructure: DOD Should Improve Reporting and Communication on Its Corrosion 

Prevention and Control Activities, GAO-13-270 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2013). 

4

Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on 

DOD Military-equipment and Infrastructure (Feb. 1, 2010).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

recompute, the ROI and determine whether the ROI is lower than 

expected, as expected, or better than expected. Finally, we examined 

guidance on internal controls5 to identify relevant responsibilities and 

practices that could be used as criteria. We reviewed all follow-on reports 

provided by the Corrosion Office and the military departments, which 

included 30 follow-on reports on projects funded in fiscal years 2005 

through 2008, to determine whether the military departments have 

collected and reported measures of achievement of their completed 

corrosion projects other than ROI, such as when outcomes prompt 

changes in specifications, standards, technical manuals, and other 

reference or guidance documents. We compared the amount of detail 

provided in the follow-on reports. Additionally, we interviewed officials 

from the Corrosion Office as well as the military departments’ Corrosion 

Executives to understand whether and how they collect data in order to 

determine whether the estimated ROIs have been achieved. Additionally, 

from our nongeneralizable random systematic sample of 43 projects, we 

interviewed project managers and project personnel to gain an 

understanding of how they provide information on the status and the 

results of corrosion projects that have completed research and 

development, transitioned to a service’s use, and been in use for 2 years. 

Specifically, we interviewed these officials to understand how they verify 

the initial investment of corrosion projects, including what the project’s 

assumptions were, how the assumptions were tracked during the first few 

years of the project, and the extent to which the implementation affected 

the ROI recomputation. For projects that were still in the demonstration 

phase, or had just been transitioned to a service’s use, we interviewed 

the officials to understand their plans to collect information to verify the 

initial investment.

To determine the extent to which DOD has tracked the status of 

equipment-related corrosion projects, we reviewed relevant law6 to 

understand legislative requirements, including a long-term strategy and a 

coordinated research and development program for the prevention and 

mitigation of corrosion for new and existing military equipment, which 

includes a plan to transition new corrosion prevention technologies into 

operational systems. Further, we examined DOD Instruction 5000.67 to 

 5

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

6

Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

gain an understanding of the department’s policy on the prevention and 

mitigation of corrosion on DOD military equipment as well as roles and 

responsibilities of the Corrosion Office and Corrosion Executives to 

collect, review, reassess, and distribute information on proven methods 

and products that are relevant to prevent corrosion of military equipment. 

We analyzed documentation for each of the 43 projects in our sample, 

specifically reviewing the project plans, final reports, and follow-on 

reports, to analyze variables, including assumptions, initial estimated ROI 

and the reassessed ROI, recommendations to transition to service use, 

project status, and benefits and outcomes other than the ROI, among 

others. We interviewed Corrosion Office officials to determine what status 

information is collected for each project, how such information is 

consolidated, and what analysis is done to oversee the status and 

outcomes of each project. Likewise, we interviewed Corrosion Executives 

to determine their approach to collect, review, reassess, and distribute 

information on proven methods and products that are relevant to prevent 

corrosion of military equipment. Specifically we interviewed these officials 

to gain an understanding on how project results were reviewed, 

managed, and documented.

To determine the extent to which DOD has identified, shared, and 

incorporated lessons learned from equipment-related corrosion projects 

into future planning to prevent or mitigate corrosion, we reviewed key 

documents, including relevant law7 to understand legislative 

requirements, and DOD policy and guidance. For example, we examined 

DOD Instruction 5000.67 to understand the department’s policy to ensure 

a focused and coordinated approach throughout DOD to collect, review, 

reassess, and distribute information on relevant proven methods and 

products. We also examined DOD’s strategic plan to understand the 

department’s guidance on using rapid and effective web-based strategies 

for communicating and sharing best practices, capturing corrosion-related 

technical information across the services, and to determine the 

requirements for lessons learned to be incorporated into project 

documentation, specifically the final report. Finally, we examined 

guidance on internal controls8 to identify relevant responsibilities and 

practices that could be used as criteria. We analyzed all final reports to 

determine whether lessons learned were being included and the extent to 

 7

Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

8

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

which they were being incorporated into future planning and guidance. 

We interviewed Corrosion Office officials to learn about their efforts to 

develop a centralized database for project information that included 

lessons learned. We interviewed Corrosion Executives and their staffs to 

learn about how lessons learned are shared and incorporated. 

Additionally, from our nongeneralizable random systematic sample of 43 

projects, we interviewed project managers and project personnel to gain 

an understanding of how lessons learned are collected, documented, 

shared, and incorporated into future corrosion planning. Specifically, we 

interviewed these officials to gain an understanding of what data are 

collected and how they are analyzed, archived, and disseminated across 

the department.

We visited or contacted the following offices during our review:9

Department of Defense

• Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

Air Force

• Air Force Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office, Robins Air Force 

Base, Georgia

• Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Research Laboratory, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio

Army

• Army Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• Army Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

• Aviation and Missile Command Corrosion Program Office, Redstone 

Arsenal, Alabama

• Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics 

and Technology

• Tobyhanna Army Depot, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

• U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering

Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey

 9

Unless otherwise specified, these organizations are located in or near Washington, D.C.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

• U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering 

Center, Michigan

Marine Corps

• Navy Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division

Navy

• Navy Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River Naval Air Station, 

Maryland

• Naval Sea Systems Command

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 through September 

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.
Appendix II: Follow-on Report, also known as 

the Project Review Checklist

Page 45 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

The Department of Defense Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 

Strategic Plan includes the template of the follow-on or project review 

checklist for project managers to document the reassessed return on 

investment and other features and benefits of the equipment-related 

corrosion projects.

Figure 3: Project Review Checklist

Appendix II: Follow-on Report, also known 

as the Project Review Checklist
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 46 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 47 GAO-13-661 Defense Management
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 48 GAO-13-661 Defense Management
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

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

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

Director; Clarine Allen; James Ashley; Laura Czohara; Mark Dowling; 

Linda Keefer; Charles Perdue; Carol Petersen; Richard Powelson; Amie 

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

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 50 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Should Improve Reporting and 

Communication on Its Corrosion Prevention and Control Activities. 

GAO-13-270. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2013.

Defense Management: Additional Information Needed to Improve Military 

Departments’ Corrosion Prevention Strategies. GAO-13-379. 

Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2013.

Defense Management: The Department of Defense’s Annual Corrosion 

Budget Report Does Not Include Some Required Information. 

GAO-12-823R. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2012.

Defense Management: The Department of Defense’s Fiscal Year 2012 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Budget Request. GAO-11-490R.

Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, 

D.C.: March 1, 2011.

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Monitor and Assess Corrective 

Actions Resulting from Its Corrosion Study of the F-35 Joint Strike 

Fighter. GAO-11-171R. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2010.

Defense Management: DOD Has a Rigorous Process to Select Corrosion 

Prevention Projects, but Would Benefit from Clearer Guidance and 

Validation of Returns on Investment. GAO-11-84. Washington, D.C.: 

December 8, 2010.

Defense Management: Observations on Department of Defense and 

Military Service Fiscal Year 2011 Requirements for Corrosion Prevention 

and Control. GAO-10-608R. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010.

Defense Management: Observations on the Department of Defense’s 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request for Corrosion Prevention and Control.

GAO-10-607R. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2010.

Defense Management: Observations on DOD’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget 

Request for Corrosion Prevention and Control. GAO-09-732R. 

Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2009.

Defense Management: Observations on DOD’s Analysis of Options for 

Improving Corrosion Prevention and Control through Earlier Planning in 

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 51 GAO-13-661 Defense Management

the Requirements and Acquisition Processes. GAO-09-694R. 

Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009.

Defense Management: Observations on DOD’s FY 2009 Budget Request 

for Corrosion Prevention and Control. GAO-08-663R. Washington, D.C.:

April 15, 2008.

Defense Management: High-Level Leadership Commitment and Actions 

Are Needed to Address Corrosion Issues. GAO-07-618. Washington, 

D.C.: April. 30, 2007.

Defense Management: Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of 

Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings. GAO-06-709. 

Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2006.

Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve Implementation of 

DOD’s Long-Term Corrosion Strategy. GAO-04-640. Washington, D.C.: 

June 23, 2004.

Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and 

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

Defense Infrastructure: Changes in Funding Priorities and Strategic 

Planning Needed to Improve the Condition of Military Facilities. 

GAO-03-274. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2003.

(351750)
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.