DEFENSE 

RESEARCH

Improved 

Management of 

DOD’s Technical 

Corrosion 

Collaboration 

Program Needed

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2014

GAO-14-437

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-437, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2014

DEFENSE RESEARCH

Improved Management of DOD’s Technical Corrosion 

Collaboration Program Needed

Why GAO Did This Study

According to DOD, corrosion can 

significantly affect maintenance cost,

service life of equipment, and military 

readiness by diminishing the 

operations of critical systems and 

creating safety hazards. Pursuant to 

Section 2228 of Title 10 of the U.S. 

Code, DOD’s Corrosion Office is 

responsible for prevention and 

mitigation of corrosion of military 

equipment and infrastructure. To help 

identify technology to prevent or 

mitigate corrosion and educate 

personnel about corrosion prevention 

and control, DOD funds universities 

and military labs in the TCC program.

GAO was asked to review DOD’s TCC 

program and its goals. In this report, 

GAO addressed the extent to which 

DOD (1) has established procedures

for managing the TCC program, (2)

can provide information on the amount 

of funds spent on the program to date, 

and (3) has established goals for the

TCC program and transitioned 

demonstrated results from projects to 

military departments. GAO reviewed 

DOD policies and plans and met with 

DOD corrosion officials and TCC

participants.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends five actions to 

improve DOD’s management of the 

TCC program. DOD partially agreed 

with two actions: to document 

procedures to select and approve labs, 

and to track and maintain accurate 

funding data. DOD did not agree with 

three recommendations to document 

procedures to select and approve

projects, and to establish a process to

transition project results to the military 

departments. GAO believes that these 

recommendations remain valid.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight 

(Corrosion Office) has documented some, but not all, key procedures for the 

Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) program. For civilian institutions, the 

Corrosion Office documented procedures for selecting projects, but has not done 

so for approving these projects. In addition, for military academic institutions, the 

office has not documented procedures for selecting and approving projects.

Corrosion Office officials stated that procedures for some aspects of the TCC 

program are not documented because the program is still evolving and they 

would like flexibility to enable innovation in determining how to manage the 

program. However, without fully documenting its decision-making procedures for 

selecting and approving projects, the Corrosion Office cannot demonstrate how 

projects were selected and approved for the TCC program.

Corrosion Office officials provided data on the amount of funds spent on the TCC 

program for fiscal years 2008 through 2013, but in some cases the data were not 

readily available and were inconsistent for the same time frame. As a result, it is 

unclear what the Corrosion Office has spent on the TCC program. Section 2228 

requires the Corrosion Office to include a description of the amount of funds used 

for the TCC program in its annual corrosion budget report to Congress. However, 

because the Corrosion Office does not track and maintain accurate records, it is 

unable to determine the amount of funds spent. In the absence of fully

documented funding data that are readily available for examination, Corrosion 

Office officials cannot ensure that they will accurately account for and report TCC 

costs in the annual budget report to Congress.

DOD has set goals for the TCC program, but has not developed a process to 

transition demonstrated results from projects to military departments. According 

to the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, TCC program 

goals are to: (1) develop individuals with education, training, and experience who 

will form the future core of the technical community within DOD and private 

industry; and (2) produce solutions that will reduce the effect of corrosion on 

DOD infrastructure and weapon systems. To track the goal of developing people, 

the Corrosion Office cited, among other things, the research papers that have 

been produced as a result of the TCC program. Section 2228 requires that the 

Corrosion Office coordinate a research and development program that includes a 

plan for the transition of new corrosion-prevention technologies to the military

departments. To track the goal to produce solutions that will reduce corrosion,

the Corrosion Office monitors TCC projects’ results; however, the office has not 

established a process to transition demonstrated results of the research projects 

to the military departments. Corrosion Office officials stated that it is difficult to 

transition results because outputs of TCC research are in the early stages of 

technology evolution and thus are not mature enough to be used by the military 

departments. Therefore, Corrosion Office officials acknowledge the need to 

establish a process to transition TCC results to the military departments. Until the 

Corrosion Office establishes a process to study and determine what, if any, TCC 

results could transition to the military departments, DOD will not be able to 

demonstrate the success of the TCC program and the extent to which TCC 

results are helping to prevent or mitigate corrosion.

View GAO-14-437. For more information, 

contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or

merrittz@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Letter 1

Background 6

DOD Has Procedures for Managing Some Aspects of the TCC 

Program, but Lacks Documented Procedures for Approving 

TCC Projects 9

The Corrosion Office Lacks Readily Available and Consistent 

Documentation on the Amount of Funds Used for the TCC 

Program 13

DOD Has Set Goals for the TCC Program, but Lacks a Process to 

Address Its Requirement to Transition Demonstrated Project 

Results to Military Departments 15

Conclusions 18

Recommendations for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24

Appendix II Current List of Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC)–Affiliated 

Universities and Labs, as of February 2014 28

Appendix III Number of Students and Research Articles Produced as a Result of 

Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) Program Funding, as of

January 2014 30

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 31

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Related GAO Products 36

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Abbreviations

BAA Broad Agency Announcement 

Corrosion Executive Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

Corrosion Office Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

DOD Department of Defense

NCERCAMP National Center for Education and Research 

on Corrosion and Material Performance

TCC Technical Corrosion Collaboration

UCC University Corrosion Collaboration

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-14-437 Defense Research

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 29, 2014

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 spending an 

estimated $20.8 billion1 annually to prevent and mitigate corrosion of all of 

its assets, including military equipment,2 weapons, facilities, and other 

infrastructure.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

 1

The $20.8 billion cost estimate, which was produced by a DOD contractor and is based 

on data from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, is the latest estimate available on DOD’s 

corrosion costs.

Corrosion 

affects military readiness by taking critical systems out of action and 

creating safety hazards. DOD implements several programs to help 

prevent and mitigate the costs of corrosion. To help identify technology or 

methods to prevent or mitigate corrosion, and educate personnel about 

corrosion prevention and mitigation, DOD funds research by universities 

and military research labs that participate in DOD’s Technical Corrosion 

Collaboration (TCC) program, a research and development program.

2

Military equipment includes all weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehicles, and 

munitions of DOD and the components of such items.

3

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.

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-14-437 Defense Research

Congress has taken a series of legislative actions aimed at enhancing 

DOD’s ability to effectively address corrosion prevention and mitigation, 

and to provide Congress with greater transparency over the department’s 

corrosion-prevention and mitigation efforts. In 2002, Congress passed 

legislation—codified at Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States 

Code—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.5 According to Section 2228 and DOD Instruction 5000.67,6 the 

Director of the Corrosion Office is responsible for the prevention and 

mitigation of corrosion of DOD equipment and infrastructure. The statute 

requires the Secretary of Defense to, among other things, implement a 

long-term strategy to reduce corrosion and the effects of corrosion on 

military equipment and infrastructure, including, among other things, the 

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 the military departments’ systems. 

Additionally, the statute requires the Secretary of Defense to annually 

submit, along with defense budget materials, a report to Congress on 

corrosion funding, including funding requirements for the coordinated 

research and development program, also known as TCC projects.7

 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).

The 

Corrosion Office also coordinates DOD-wide corrosion-prevention 

activities such as operating the Corrosion Office website (hereafter 

6

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.

7

TCC project examples include testing corrosion of materials in different environments 

and developing a training video or curriculum about corrosion prevention for use by 

universities and other entities. 
Page 3 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

referred to as other corrosion-prevention and mitigation activities),8 and 

projects proposed by the military departments such as testing a protective 

covering for cable connectors on a missile system (hereafter referred to 

as military demonstration projects).9

In 2013, Congress amended Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States 

Code to require the Corrosion Office to include the amount it spent on 

TCC projects in its annual corrosion budget report.10 From fiscal year 

2008 through fiscal year 2013, according to Corrosion Office officials, the 

office has provided approximately $88.3 million to universities and military 

research labs to support the TCC program.11 In its fiscal year 2014 annual 

corrosion budget report to Congress, the Corrosion Office requested $9.1 

million, including $1.4 million for the TCC program.12

We were requested to review the TCC program and its goals. This report 

addresses to what extent DOD (1) has established procedures for 

managing the TCC program, (2) can provide information on the amount of 

funds spent on the program since inception, and (3) has established 

 8

Among DOD’s corrosion-prevention and mitigation activities are conducting corrosion 

studies and operating DOD’s corrosion website. The Corrosion Office identifies these as 

“required activities” that are essential to the success and institutionalization of the 

corrosion program within DOD. According to Corrosion Office officials, prior to the 2013 

annual budget report to Congress on corrosion funding, DOD grouped the TCC program, 

including its projects, under the corrosion-prevention and mitigation activities category.

9

The projects are military department technology-demonstration projects for both 

equipment and infrastructure that meet the Corrosion Office’s criteria for funding. The 

projects are jointly funded by the Corrosion Office and the military departments. See GAO, 

Defense Management: DOD Should Enhance Oversight of Equipment-Related Corrosion 

Projects, GAO-13-661 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2013); 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).

10In January 2013, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act amended Section 

2228(e) for Title 10, United States Code to add a requirement for a description of specific 

amount of funds used for the TCC program and other corrosion-related activities. 

11TCC funding amounts for fiscal years 2008 to 2013 were not available for us to 

independently verify because prior to fiscal year 2013, Congress did not require the 

Corrosion Office to separate TCC funding in its budget report. In addition, the Corrosion 

Office was only required to report current and 1-year-prior funding. 

12Department of Defense Report to Congress on Corrosion Policy and Oversight Budget 

Materials for Fiscal Year 2014 (February 2013).
Page 4 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

goals for the TCC program and transitioned demonstrated results from 

projects to the military departments.

To determine the extent to which DOD has developed procedures for 

managing the TCC program, we reviewed DOD’s guidance—the 2014 

DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan.

13 We also 

reviewed the TCC Definitions Document to identify DOD’s procedures for 

selecting and approving TCC projects. We compared DOD’s procedures 

for managing the TCC program with criteria in federal standards for 

internal control.14 We obtained information from universities participating 

in the TCC program regarding projects funded by the Corrosion Office for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2013. We selected a nongeneralizable sample15

of projects for further review. Specifically, we chose seven projects 

conducted by the five universities that received the most funding from the 

Corrosion Office. We used a semistructured interview tool to obtain 

information from project managers at selected universities to further 

understand the Corrosion Office’s procedures and their implementation, 

and to identify successes and challenges, if any. We requested and 

reviewed project-related documents, such as white papers,16 formal 

project proposals,17

 13Corrosion 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, 2011, and 2014.

purchase requests, cooperative agreements, grants, 

14GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). Internal control is an integral component of an 

organization’s management that provides reasonable assurance that the following 

objectives are being achieved: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of 

financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

15Our nongeneralizable sample-selection methodology ensured selection of a variety of 

projects over various years and types of projects. 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 sampleselection methodology.

16According to Corrosion Office officials, the white papers briefly explain how potential 

TCC participants would address military needs to prevent or mitigate corrosion. The 

papers include background information about the project, technical approach for 

conducting the project, and collaborating entities, such as universities.

17Formal proposals are more detailed than white papers. The proposals include 

information such as the technical issue to be addressed and the objective for the project, 

and describe university and military collaborations.
Page 5 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

and contracts to determine how projects were selected, approved, and 

funded. We also interviewed officials from the Corrosion Office, as well as 

representatives from each of the military departments to understand how 

the procedures were implemented.

To determine the extent to which DOD can provide information on the 

amount of funds it spent on the TCC program, we reviewed financial 

records such as documents that show funds the Corrosion Office 

provided to the universities and military research labs, and Military 

Interdepartmental Purchase Requests.18

To determine the extent to which DOD established goals for TCC and 

transitioned demonstrated results from projects to the military 

departments, we reviewed DOD documents, such as DOD’s TCC 

Definitions Document and the 2014 DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan, to identify goals of the TCC program, as well as 

any successes to date cited by DOD. We also examined Section 2228 of 

Title 10 of the United States Code that requires the Secretary of Defense 

to develop and implement a long-term strategy that includes a plan to 

transition new corrosion-prevention technologies to military departments. 

We reviewed status reports obtained from Corrosion Office officials. We 

also attended the 2013 Annual TCC Review to obtain information on the 

status of projects from TCC participants, including researchers at 

universities and military research labs. We further interviewed corrosionWe compared the Corrosion 

Office’s funding data with the purchase requests for fiscal years 2009 

through 2013 to identify any differences. We also examined Section 2228 

of Title 10 of the United States Code that requires the Corrosion Office to 

submit an annual corrosion budget report that includes funds used for the 

TCC program. We further interviewed Corrosion Office officials to discuss 

the amount of funds DOD spent on TCC projects. Although we 

determined that data from the Corrosion Office were sufficiently reliable 

for selecting a nongeneralizable sample of universities and projects for 

further review, we found some funding data discrepancies and 

documentation issues, which we discuss in this report and make 

recommendations for corrective action.

 18The Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request is a form used by a DOD requesting 

agency, such as the U.S. Air Force Academy, to place an order for, among other things, 

services, such as conducting research, with entities including military academic 

institutions.
Page 6 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

program officials to discuss the status of DOD’s efforts to transition 

project results to military departments.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to May 2014 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.

In 2011, according to Corrosion Office officials, the Corrosion Office 

established the TCC program, a research and development program that 

is the successor to the University Corrosion Collaboration (UCC) pilot 

program, established in 2008. The TCC program builds on efforts of the 

UCC pilot program by expanding and formalizing the role of military 

personnel, such as representatives at military research labs, in problem 

identification, research project development, project monitoring, and 

product transition.19 DOD relies, in part, on researchers at universities 

and military research labs to identify, pursue, and develop new 

technologies that address the prevention or mitigation of corrosion 

affecting military assets. The Corrosion Office oversees the TCC 

program, advocates for TCC funding as part of the President’s annual 

budget, funds TCC projects based on available budget, convenes and 

chairs the panel that selects projects, and regularly communicates 

progress and status of the TCC program to the Corrosion Control and 

Prevention Executives (hereafter referred to as Corrosion Executives).20

 19According to corrosion-program officials, they did not conduct an analysis to assess the 

merit of going from a pilot to a full program. They indicated that the UCC pilot program 

naturally evolved into the TCC pilot program in 2011, and the pilot ended in June 2013, 

creating a formal TCC program. The UCC pilot program was a national partnership of 

faculty and students from five universities—University of Southern Mississippi, University 

of Virginia, University of Hawaii, Ohio State University, and University of Akron—working 

with representatives from military research labs on an ad hoc basis.

The Corrosion Office’s 2014 DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 

20Section 903 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417 (2008), required the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force to each designate a Corrosion Executive to be the senior official in each military 

department with responsibility for coordinating department-level program activities to 

prevent or control corrosion.

Background
Page 7 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Strategic Plan includes an objective to increase the number of people 

educated in corrosion engineering and management. With regard to the 

TCC program, the strategic plan cites the education goal of producing 

individuals with education and skills that will form the future core of DOD’s 

corrosion community.21

The current TCC program includes 15 universities—civilian institutions 

and military academic institutions to conduct projects in corrosion 

issues22

The universities associated with the TCC program are responsible for, 

among other things, assisting in the identification of research and 

development opportunities; conducting TCC projects in collaboration with 

other universities and DOD technical personnel at the military research 

labs; and producing products that can be transitioned to systems 

development, or prototype demonstration.

—and nine military research labs that support the universities. 

Appendix II shows the current list of TCC-affiliated universities and labs, 

as of February 2014. As of February 2014, according to the Corrosion 

Office, it has provided funding to universities and labs for 126 projects 

since the program began in 2008.

23

 21According to a 2001 National Academy of Sciences study, there has been a lack of inhouse corrosion experts. 

Additionally, military research 

labs are responsible for, among other things, identifying areas of research 

and development that can mitigate current DOD corrosion problems or 

address future problems; working with the universities participating in the 

TCC program to develop sound and focused research and development 

projects; and monitoring and guiding work in progress at the universities.

22The term “university” includes civilian institutions and military academic institutions. 

Civilian institutions include public universities, a private university, and a commercial 

organization that conduct research. SAFE Inc. is the commercial organization that, among 

other things, conducts TCC projects for the U.S. Air Force Academy. Military academic 

institutions include military service academies (i.e., the U.S. Military Academy at West 

Point; the Naval Postgraduate School; and the Air Force Institute of Technology, a 

graduate school).

23The evolution of technology comprises four main phases: (1) Understanding the 

concept/obtaining a better understanding of the concept (i.e., research), (2) Technology 

Product Development, (3) Technology Demonstration, and (4) Implementation. The TCC 

program falls under the first phase and the military demonstration projects, which we 

previously reported on, fall under phase 3. Military demonstration projects differ from the 

TCC projects because they are more mature than TCC projects.
Page 8 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

The Corrosion Office oversees processes to select, approve, and fund 

projects within the TCC program.

• Selection: According to the Corrosion Office, the office convened a 

panel of experts chaired by the Deputy Director of the Corrosion 

Office and including personnel from the Corrosion Office and the 

Director of the research center at the U.S. Air Force Academy. The 

panel of experts evaluates civilian institutions’ white papers and moredetailed formal proposals to select institutions’ project proposals for 

final approval by the Corrosion Office. The Corrosion Office directly 

evaluates proposals submitted by military academic institutions and 

labs to select entities for approval.

• Approval: The Corrosion Office’s Deputy Director approves the final 

list of TCC projects to be conducted by civilian institutions and military 

academic institutions, and the final list of military research labs that 

support the institutions.

• Funding: When civilian institutions’ proposals are approved, the 

Corrosion Office provides funds—primarily using Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation funds, and some Operation and 

Maintenance funds—to the contracting division within the U.S. Air 

Force Academy, which pays the researchers at the civilian institutions 

to conduct research. Researchers at the military academic institutions 

and military research labs receive funding directly from the Corrosion 

Office.

The Corrosion Office monitors the projects through, among other things, 

TCC annual reviews and status reports. Corrosion Office officials stated 

that when a university completes its research, university project 

managers send a final report about the results to the Corrosion Office.
Page 9 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

DOD’s Corrosion Office has established procedures for managing some 

aspects of the TCC program, but it has not documented procedures for 

approving TCC projects.24 Specifically, for civilian institutions, the 

Corrosion Office has documented procedures for selecting projects, but it 

has not documented procedures for approving these projects. 

Additionally, the Corrosion Office has not documented procedures for 

selecting and approving projects for military academic institutions that 

conduct the research and military research labs that support civilian and 

military institutions. The Corrosion Office revised its DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan25 in January 2014 to include the 

minimum requirements and other factors to consider when selecting 

projects to be funded under the TCC program.26 Prior to the revised 2014 

strategic plan, according to Corrosion Office officials, they included the 

process for selecting projects in the TCC Definitions Document,27

 24For purposes of this report, we refer to the TCC procedures as selection and approval 

procedures. However, Corrosion Office officials stated that they include the procedures 

associated with approving projects by the office under the procedures associated with 

selecting projects.

which 

was created and shared with the participants of the TCC program in 

2010. Corrosion Office officials stated that they updated the contents of 

the definitions document and included the information in the revised 

strategic plan. However, we found that procedures for managing key 

aspects of the TCC program, such as procedures for selecting and 

25Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, Department of Defense, DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. The stated purpose of the plan is to articulate 

policies, strategies, objectives, and plans that will ensure an effective, standardized, 

affordable DOD-wide approach to prevent, detect, and treat corrosion and its effects on 

military equipment and infrastructure.

26According to the 2014 DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, the 

minimum requirements for a research project to be funded under the TCC program 

include, among other things: (1) linkage to the identified advanced development 

opportunities and to the cost of corrosion and/or materiel availability studies; (2) a 

formalized collaboration agreement between a minimum of two TCC member universities 

and one government activity; and (3) inclusion of a student or students who are eligible to 

work for DOD following graduation.

27The TCC Definitions Document defines, among other things, the (1) TCC concept; (2) 

TCC goals; (3) TCC participants’ roles and responsibilities; and (4) TCC processes for, 

among other things: (a) identifying advanced development opportunities; (b) selecting 

projects to be funded under the TCC program, including linkage to the Science and 

Technology roadmap, which is a framework for identifying the research needed to prevent 

and mitigate corrosion of military assets, according to Corrosion Office officials; (c) 

monitoring projects; and (d) identifying products to be delivered under the program.

DOD Has Procedures 

for Managing Some 

Aspects of the TCC 

Program, but Lacks 

Documented 

Procedures for 

Approving TCC 

Projects
Page 10 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

approving TCC projects, are not fully documented in the 2014 revised 

strategic plan or other documentation, such as management directives, 

administrative policies, or operating manuals for some projects. According 

to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, all 

transactions and other significant events, such as the procedures for 

managing the TCC program, need to be clearly documented and readily 

available for examination. As part of internal control standards, 

documentation should appear in management directives, administrative 

policies, or operating manuals, and may be in paper or electronic form. In 

addition, these standards state that all documentation and records should 

be properly managed and maintained.

For civilian institutions, Corrosion Office officials stated that they use the 

U.S. Air Force Academy’s documented process, called the Broad Agency 

Announcement (hereafter referred to as the BAA process), which includes 

written instructions or procedures for selecting projects, but the office has 

not documented how the Deputy Director of the Corrosion Office 

approves the final list of projects.28

 28According to Corrosion Office officials, the U.S. Air Force Academy administers 

contracts to civilian institutions to conduct corrosion research because the Corrosion 

Office does not have the resources to administer the process to announce the need for 

corrosion-technology research.

These officials stated that under the 

BAA process, the U.S. Air Force Academy publicly announces the 

Corrosion Office’s intent to fund TCC projects that focus on researching 

technologies to help prevent and mitigate corrosion affecting military 

assets. Corrosion Office officials stated that they use the BAA process to 

review and evaluate white papers and formal proposals. According to 

representatives from civilian institutions, they provide white papers and 

formal proposals in response to the BAA. A Corrosion Office official 

stated that procedures associated with selecting projects, such as 

identifying that the Corrosion Office will convene and chair the project 

selection panel, are partially documented in the TCC Definitions 

Document. Corrosion Office officials also stated that their 2014 strategic 

plan identifies that the office will convene and chair the panel. According 

to Corrosion Office officials, to review the white papers, the Corrosion 

Office convenes a panel of experts, and the panel uses requirements 

identified in the BAA to evaluate which civilian institutions will be notified 
Page 11 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

to submit formal proposals.29

For military academic institutions, Corrosion Office officials stated that 

they have established a process for selecting projects, which is identified 

in DOD’s TCC Definitions Document and its 2014 strategic plan that 

include requirements and other factors to consider when selecting some 

TCC projects for approval. Officials stated that the requirements apply to 

both civilian institutions and military academic institutions. However, the 

Corrosion Office has not documented the type of information required 

from military academic institutions, including project proposals and steps 

taken by decision makers to select and approve projects. The Corrosion 

Office evaluates military proposals to select some projects for approval 

based on requirements identified in the definitions document and 2014

revised strategic plan. The Corrosion Office approves the final list of TCC 

projects based on the proposals it receives from the military academic 

institutions and provides funds directly to the researchers at the military 

academic institutions to conduct research. The Corrosion Office uses 

Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests to transfer funds between 

the Corrosion Office and the military academic institutions.

These officials stated that the panel selects 

white papers for additional development, requests the civilian institutions 

to provide formal proposals, and evaluates formal proposals based on 

requirements published in the BAA. Specifically, the panel identifies which 

formal proposals will be considered for final approval by the Corrosion 

Office and sends the selected proposals to the Corrosion Office’s Deputy 

Director for final approval. Once the projects are approved, according to 

agency officials, the Corrosion Office provides TCC funds to the U.S. Air 

Force Academy, which pays the researchers at the civilian institutions 

through cooperative agreements and grants.

For military research labs, the Corrosion Office described how it selects 

and approves the labs to, among other things, work with the civilian and 

military academic institutions participating in the TCC program to develop 

sound and focused research and development projects, and to monitor 

and guide work in progress at the civilian and military institutions. 

 29The selection official may consider the following program policy factors in the selection 

process: potential recipients that (1) collaborate with other potential recipients such as forprofit and non-profit organizations, and universities with research supported through the 

announcement/call; and (2) support and collaborate with a military service, as 

demonstrated by supporting documentation such as a 1-page letter of support, and 

expected collaboration from a representative of a military service.
Page 12 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

However, the Corrosion Office has not documented procedures, such as 

steps taken by decision makers to select and approve the military 

research labs, in the Corrosion Office’s documents or guidance, such as 

the strategic plan. According to Corrosion Office officials, they review 

information from the labs regarding an explanation of how the labs plan to 

assist the civilian and military institutions in conducting TCC projects and 

select the highest priority activities within the available budget. For 

example, according to a military research lab representative, it reviews 

the civilian institutions that participated in the program and their TCC 

efforts and indicates to the Corrosion Office which institutions it can best 

support. The Corrosion Office determines the final list of labs that will 

receive funding and provides funds directly to the researchers at the 

military research labs to pay for their participation in the TCC research. 

As previously stated, according to the Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government, all transactions and other significant events, 

such as the procedures for managing the program, need to be clearly 

documented.

We found that the Corrosion Office has documented its procedures for 

selecting military demonstration projects in its 2014 strategic plan but has 

not fully documented its procedures for managing key aspects of the TCC 

program in keeping with federal standards for internal control. According 

to Corrosion Office officials, the procedures for some aspects of the TCC 

program are not documented because the program is still evolving and 

they would like flexibility to enable innovation in determining how to 

manage the program. Corrosion Office officials acknowledged that their 

procedures for selecting TCC projects could be included in their 

definitions document. Without fully documenting its decision-making 

procedures for selecting and approving projects, the Corrosion Office 

cannot demonstrate how projects were selected and approved for the 

TCC program.
Page 13 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Corrosion Office officials provided the amount of funds for the TCC 

program for fiscal years 2008 to 2013, but lacked readily available or 

consistent documentation to support some of the funding data. As a 

result, it is unclear what the Corrosion Office has spent on the TCC 

program. Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires the 

Corrosion Office to include a description of the specific amount of funds 

used for the TCC program and other corrosion-prevention and mitigation 

activities (for the prior year) in its annual corrosion budget report. In 

addition, Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state 

that agencies should clearly document transactions and other significant 

events and the documentation should be readily available for 

examination.30

Regarding the inconsistent funding amounts for the same time frame, in a 

prior GAO mandated review of the Corrosion Office’s 2013 budget report, 

we obtained information from the Corrosion Office and found that it spent 

Also, federal internal control standards state that agencies 

should have accurate and timely recording of transactions and events. 

Specifically, we found that the Corrosion Office could not fully support or 

readily show documentation for some of the TCC funding data it provided 

us. For fiscal year 2008, Corrosion Office officials could not provide 

supporting documentation for the approximate $6.8 million that it reported 

spending on the TCC program in that year. Corrosion Office officials 

stated that they used a different financial management system in 2008 

and did not maintain documents from that time frame. For fiscal years 

2009 to 2013, we attempted to verify the office’s funding data using the 

Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests that the Corrosion Office 

uses to transfer TCC funding to the military institutions. However, some of 

the documentation the officials provided did not fully reconcile with the 

final funding data they provided. For example, purchase requests for 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013 showed amounts greater (by $1.3 million and 

$15,000, respectively) than the figures the Corrosion Office provided. 

According to the Corrosion Office, the purchase requests they provided 

may not fully document specific TCC funding because in some cases the 

purchase requests included funds for other corrosion efforts comingled 

with these funds. Further, officials said that one would have to review 

other supporting documents, such as statements of work, to isolate TCC 

funds.

 30GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

The Corrosion

Office Lacks

Readily Available

and Consistent 

Documentation on

the Amount of Funds 

Used for the TCC 

Program
Page 14 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

$69.5 million for the TCC program from fiscal years 2009 to 2012.31

We also attempted to independently verify TCC funding by comparing the 

funding data the Corrosion Office provided us with data provided from a 

recipient of some of the funds. Specifically, we obtained funding 

information from a university that managed some projects that the 

Corrosion Office included in its TCC funding from fiscal years 2008 to 

2012.

In 

May 2013 (at the beginning of our current review), the Corrosion Office 

briefed us that it spent $67.7 million on the TCC program for fiscal years 

2009 through 2012. When we brought it to the office’s attention that this 

figure differed, officials asked for additional time to verify their data. In 

February 2014, officials provided us a revised funding amount of $67.5 

million for fiscal years 2009 through 2012, and in March 2014, they 

provided us a funding amount of $72 million for these same years. 

Overall, the difference from the first amount and the final amount is about 

$2.5 million for these same years. According to Corrosion Office officials, 

the funding amounts differed because prior to 2013, the office was not 

required to track and report TCC funds separately from other corrosionrelated activity funds. The office also cited a lack of resources to track 

and maintain funding data when the program was initiated.

32

 31We documented the information in internal records, but did not cite the dollar amount in 

our final report. See GAO, Defense Management: The Department of Defense’s Annual 

Corrosion Budget Report Does Not Include Some Required Information, 

We found that some funding data did not match for these years. 

For example, for fiscal year 2010, the Corrosion Office indicated that it 

provided $6.3 million to the university for education projects, but the 

university presented documents showing that the Corrosion Office 

provided $6.4 million (a difference of about $70,000). When we brought 

this to the attention of Corrosion Office officials, they agreed to follow up 

with the university to reconcile the differences in the funds, but have not 

provided an explanation. Overall, we were unable to verify what the 

GAO-12-823R

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

32According to Corrosion Office officials, these education projects—known as National 

Center for Education and Research on Corrosion and Materials Performance 

(NCERCAMP) projects—were conducted at the University of Akron. NCERCAMP projects 

include research, training, and program integration activities. For fiscal years 2008 to 

2013, all of the funds the Corrosion Office provided the university for NCERCAMP projects 

were accounted for as part of TCC funding. However, Corrosion Office officials stated that 

they have reconsidered how they account for these funds and for current and future 

budgets they plan to account for some NCERCAMP funds under other corrosionprevention and mitigation activities. 
Page 15 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Corrosion Office has spent on the TCC program. Without tracking and 

maintaining accurate records and fully documenting funding information 

that is readily available for examination, Corrosion Office officials cannot 

ensure that they accurately account for and report the TCC program costs 

in the annual budget report to Congress.

DOD’s Corrosion Office has established two goals for the TCC program, 

and has a process in place to monitor the results of the program. 

According to the 2014 DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic 

Plan, TCC has the following goals: (1) develop individuals with education, 

training, and experience who will form the future core of the technical 

community within DOD and private industry that specializes in work on 

corrosion prevention or control; and (2) produce solutions (i.e., 

knowledge, technologies, processes, and materials) that tangibly reduce 

the effect of corrosion on DOD infrastructure and weapon systems.

To address its goal of developing individuals through education, training, 

and experience, the Corrosion Office monitors TCC projects that include 

involving students in corrosion research. The TCC program provides 

students with the opportunity to pursue advanced education that will form

the future core of the technical community within DOD and private 

industry that specializes in work on corrosion prevention or control. 

Corrosion Office officials track results and have cited the number of 

DOD Has Set

Goals for the TCC 

Program, but Lacks

a Process to Address 

Its Requirement

to Transition 

Demonstrated Project 

Results to Military 

Departments

The Corrosion Office Has 

Established Two Goals for 

the TCC Program

TCC Has Helped

Support the Education

of Individuals on

Corrosion Issues
Page 16 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

students and research papers33 that have been produced as a result of 

receiving TCC funds. The Corrosion Office cited these results as success 

stories. According to the Corrosion Office, as of January 2014, the TCC 

program has funded 64 graduate students, and 63 undergraduate 

students. In addition, TCC funding has resulted in 52 research articles. 

(App. III provides additional details of the number of graduates and 

research articles, by TCC participant). Corrosion Office officials stated 

that it is difficult to measure the success of research and purposely did 

not set target numbers for students or research papers because sheer 

numbers would not show the full extent of the benefits received from the 

number of students educated or the research papers published. We 

acknowledge that it can be difficult to measure the success of research. 

For example, we previously found that evaluating the effectiveness of 

research programs can be difficult and noted challenges, such as 

research results may take a long time and research may not achieve its 

intended results but can lead to unexpected discoveries that provide 

potentially more-interesting and valuable results.34

The Corrosion Office has established a research goal for producing 

solutions that tangibly reduce the effect of corrosion on DOD 

infrastructure and weapon systems; however, the office has not 

established a process for transitioning any results of the demonstrated 

research projects to the military departments. DOD Instruction 5000.67, 

which implements Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code, 

establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance for 

corrosion prevention and control within DOD. The instruction requires the 

Corrosion Office to develop a long-term strategy for corrosion prevention 

and mitigation that, among other things, provides for a coordinated 

research and development program that includes the transition of new 

corrosion-prevention technologies to military departments. In addition, 

federal internal control standards state that agencies should establish 

procedures and mechanisms that enforce management’s directives, such 

 33Officials also tracked success stories in terms of corrosion presentations made at 

conferences and the establishment of corrosion course curriculum.

34GAO, America COMPETES Act: It Is Too Early to Evaluate Programs Long-Term 

Effectiveness, but Agencies Could Improve Reporting of High-Risk, High-Reward 

Research Priorities GAO-11-127R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010). 

The Corrosion Office 

Lacks a Process for 

Transitioning TCC’s 

Demonstrated Project 

Results to the Military 

Departments
Page 17 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

as the process of adhering to requirements, which in this case is the 

requirement to transition TCC results to the military departments.

The Corrosion Office has a process to monitor that the contractual 

agreements of the TCC research projects are being accomplished. 

Specifically, according to Corrosion Office officials, the Corrosion Office, 

among other things, periodically tracks the status of the TCC projects.35

However, the office’s ultimate goal, officials stated, is to transition results 

of the demonstrated TCC projects, when possible, to the military 

departments. Corrosion Office officials defined success as the production 

of products or knowledge that can be used by the military departments as 

they develop and implement corrosion-control technologies within their 

services.36 For example, officials cited one ongoing project as an example 

of a success story: the project has identified important information about a 

technique of using fasteners to accelerate corrosion during outdoor 

exposures.37

The military departments’ Corrosion Executives, who are assigned to be 

the principal points of contact on corrosion issues, stated that none of the 

results from TCC projects have transitioned to the military departments. 

While there are no specific examples of TCC program results that have 

transitioned to Air Force operational systems, the Air Force’s Corrosion 

Executive stated there are cases where the results of TCC projects have 

revealed areas that the Air Force needs to further review, such as the 

Accelerated testing is an approach that expedites the 

corrosion of material or its properties and will allow officials to obtain more 

information from a given test time than would normally be possible. 

According to Corrosion Office officials, this project will provide information 

that the military departments can use as they design and conduct their 

future tests. However, the Corrosion Office does not have a process for 

how it will transition the results of this project to the military departments 

in accordance with the Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code 

and DOD Instruction 5000.67.

 35The Corrosion Office tracks the status of the TCC projects through reports it calls “quad 

charts,” which are provided periodically and contain information, including project 

description, accomplishments, applicability, anticipated work, accomplishments for the 

upcoming quarter, and challenges and lessons learned.

36The products are technologies, such as predictive models and new coating systems, or 

processes, such as new test techniques or methods for investigating corrosion.

37The name of the project is Acceleration of Corrosion Exposures for Coatings Evaluation.
Page 18 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

effects of corrosion on structural integrity. A spokesman for the Army’s 

Corrosion Executive stated that the Army is unaware of any TCC project 

that has been incorporated into any specific military system or that has 

specifically affected the Army’s corrosion-prevention and control 

performance. The Navy’s Corrosion Executive stated it is anticipated that 

at the conclusion of TCC projects, military research labs will continue 

development of any resulting technologies (to support future platform 

demonstration, validation, and implementation). However, the Navy does 

not expect that the technology from TCC’s efforts will be transitioned 

directly to the Navy’s use but rather to the Technology Product 

Development phase of technology evolution. Further, the Navy considers 

knowledge and technical expertise to be the key outputs of TCC efforts, 

and sees the development of knowledge and technology as long-term 

efforts. Thus, although the Navy expects tangible benefits from TCC, the 

Navy believes that it may be too early to visualize potential benefits.

Corrosion Office officials stated that it is difficult to transition results of the 

TCC projects to the military departments because outputs of TCC 

research are in the early stages of technology evolution and thus are not 

mature enough to be used by the military departments. Therefore, 

Corrosion Office officials acknowledged the need to establish a process 

to transition TCC results to the military departments. Until the Corrosion 

Office establishes a process to study and determine what, if any, TCC 

results could transition to the military departments, DOD will not be able 

to demonstrate the success of the TCC program and the extent to which 

TCC results are helping to prevent or mitigate corrosion.

To help reduce the billions of dollars in annual costs from the effects of 

corrosion on DOD’s infrastructure and military equipment, the 

department’s Corrosion Office has been collaborating with universities 

and military research labs on research for solutions and to educate 

personnel about corrosion. The Corrosion Office has provided an 

overview of its management process, including minimum requirements for 

selecting TCC projects, and uses the Broad Agency Announcement 

process to select some TCC projects; however, officials have not fully 

documented some key procedures for selecting and approving projects 

for funding. Documenting this information would be consistent with 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which states 

that all transactions and other significant events, such as the procedures 

for managing a program, need to be clearly documented. Without fully 

documenting its decision-making procedures for selecting and approving 

projects, the Corrosion Office cannot demonstrate how projects were 

Conclusions
Page 19 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

selected and approved for the TCC program. Internal control standards 

also state that agencies should clearly document transactions and 

documentation should be readily available for examination. Section 2228 

of Title 10 of the United States Code also requires that DOD annually 

report the amount of funds used for the TCC program to Congress. We 

determined that the Corrosion Office did not maintain accurate records, or 

have supporting documents readily available for examination. Without 

tracking and maintaining accurate records and fully documenting funding 

information that is readily available for examination, Corrosion Office 

officials cannot ensure that they accurately account for and report the 

TCC program costs in the annual budget report to Congress.

DOD is continuing to support millions of dollars worth of corrosion-related 

research at universities and labs in anticipation of eventually transitioning 

the results of projects to benefit the military departments. The Corrosion 

Office has established a TCC goal to produce solutions that will tangibly 

reduce the effect of corrosion on DOD systems. However, DOD’s 

Corrosion Office has not established a process for transitioning TCC 

program results to benefit the military departments, which is required by 

Section 2228. Without the establishment of a process for transitioning 

results to the military departments, DOD will not be able to further 

demonstrate the success of the TCC program and the extent to which 

TCC results are helping to prevent or mitigate corrosion.

We are making five recommendations to help ensure that DOD 

strengthens the management of the TCC program.

To enhance DOD’s ability to make consistent and informed decisions in 

its management of the TCC program in accordance with internal control 

standards, we recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics require the Director, Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight Office, to

• document the procedures for approving projects within the TCC 

program for civilian institutions;

• document the procedures for selecting and approving projects within 

the TCC program for military academic institutions;

• document the procedures for selecting and approving military 

research labs supporting civilian and military institutions in conducting 

projects within the TCC program; and

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 20 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

• track and maintain accurate records that include amounts of funds 

used for the TCC program, and have them readily available for 

examination to ensure that funding data will be accurately accounted 

for and reported in future reports, such as the annual budget report to 

Congress.

To better ensure that DOD can demonstrate the success of the TCC 

program and the extent to which TCC results will help to prevent or 

mitigate corrosion, we recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics require the Director, Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight Office, to establish a process for transitioning 

demonstrated results of TCC projects to the military departments as 

required by the Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

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

comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, DOD partially concurred 

with two of our recommendations and did not concur with three 

recommendations. 

DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation that the Director, 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, document the procedures for 

selecting and approving military research labs supporting civilian and 

military institutions in conducting projects within the TCC program. DOD 

stated that the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan

adequately documents the procedure for selecting and approving military 

research labs that support projects conducted by civilian and military 

institutions within the TCC program, but agreed to add additional details 

to its documentation. DOD also stated that the strategic plan notes that it 

will fund projects based on available budget, and funding will be provided 

to both military research labs and universities. However, we do not agree 

that this information represents documentation for selecting and 

approving military research labs, as we have recommended. As we noted 

in our report, we found that the 2014 strategic plan and TCC Definitions 

Document provide some information about the requirements and factors 

for selecting projects, but the documents do not mention the steps taken 

by decision makers to select and approve the military research labs. 

Although DOD’s response agreed to add details to its 2014 strategic plan, 

it did not specify what type of information will be added. Thus, we 

maintain that DOD could enhance its oversight of corrosion projects by 

documenting how it selects and then approves military research labs 

supporting civilian and military institutions. Additionally, documenting 

these procedures would help ensure that the Corrosion Office’s leaders 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 21 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

consistently follow procedures for selecting and approving labs that 

support the institutions within the TCC program.

DOD partially concurred with our fourth recommendation that the Director, 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, track and maintain accurate 

records that include amounts of funds used for the TCC program, and 

have them readily available for examination to ensure the funding data 

will be accurately accounted for and reported in future reports, such as 

the annual budget report to Congress. DOD stated that GAO was 

provided a complete and accurate set of financial records during the 

course of this engagement, but DOD acknowledged, in its comments and 

during the review, that there was initially some inconsistency in financial 

reporting. DOD cited the following reasons for inconsistent financial 

reporting: (1) some projects funded early in the program, under the 

University Corrosion Collaboration program, would not be considered 

under the current TCC program; and (2) in 2013, Congress required the 

Corrosion Office to call out funding for research opportunities separately 

from activity requirements and project opportunities. Further, in its 

response, DOD stated that it has now implemented internal controls to 

identify and document budget categories for each financial transaction 

executed, which it says will improve timeliness of reporting. In effect, this

would meet the intent of our recommendation, if implemented. However, 

the reasons that DOD cited above, which we also noted in our report, do 

not negate the need for DOD to track and maintain accurate funding 

information. We maintain that DOD should track and maintain accurate 

records that include amounts of funds used for the TCC program, and 

have them readily available for examination to ensure the funding data 

will be accurately accounted for and reported in future reports, such as 

the annual budget report to Congress.

DOD did not concur with our first and second recommendations that the 

Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, document the procedures 

for approving projects for civilian institutions, and for selecting and 

approving projects for military academic institutions. In its response, DOD 

stated that the process is adequately documented in the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and TCC Definitions Document. 

DOD noted that the plan and definitions document (1) provide five primary 

and six secondary project-selection requirements, and (2) state that the 

Corrosion Office will convene and chair the project-selection panel. 

Additionally, DOD noted that it did not make a distinction in the 

documents regarding the type of institution (civilian or military) because 

the requirements are applicable across the TCC program. We agree and 

noted in our report that the TCC Definitions Document and its 2014 
Page 22 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

strategic plan include requirements (i.e., primary requirements) and other 

factors to consider (i.e., secondary requirements) when selecting some 

TCC projects. Although DOD states these requirements in its definitions 

document and strategic plan, it has not documented how it applies these 

requirements to approve projects for civilian institutions, and to select and 

approve projects for military academic institutions. The selection of 

projects is partially documented for civilian institutions (i.e., a panel 

convenes). However, during our discussions with officials, they 

acknowledged that a panel was not involved in the procedures for 

selecting and approving military academic institutions. Instead, the 

Deputy Director makes selection and approval decisions, but these 

procedures are not documented. We maintain that DOD could enhance 

its oversight of corrosion projects by documenting how it approves 

projects for civilian institutions and selects and approves TCC projects for 

military academic institutions. Additionally, documenting these procedures 

would help ensure that the Corrosion Office’s leaders consistently follow 

procedures for approving projects for the civilian institutions, and for

selecting and approving projects for military academic institutions.

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

Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, establish a process for 

transitioning demonstrated results of TCC projects to the military 

departments as required by Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States 

Code. In its response, DOD stated that the process for transitioning 

demonstrated results of TCC projects to the military departments is 

appropriately developed and documented in the DOD Corrosion 

Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and the TCC Definitions 

Document. DOD also stated that the TCC program is specifically 

designed to improve the probability of technology transition by ensuring 

early and close collaboration between the research institutions and the 

military department laboratories. Additionally, DOD stated that the DOD 

Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan describes this 

collaborative effort. Specifically, a figure within the plan illustrates that as 

the research matures to the “System Development/Prototype 

Demonstration” phase, military department personnel resume the primary 

role in transitioning the technology to their respective departments with 

the goal being implementation of the technology. We noted in our report 

that DOD Instruction 5000.67, which implements Section 2228 of Title 10 

of the United States Code, requires the Corrosion Office to develop a 

long-term strategy for corrosion prevention and mitigation that, among 

other things, provides for a coordinated research and development 

program that includes the transition of new corrosion-prevention 

technologies to the military departments. However, we did not identify a 
Page 23 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

process for transitioning project results to the military departments in 

DOD documents, such as its strategic plan, which states that the project 

results should transition to the military departments. Further, we also 

found that the figure referenced does not illustrate a process for how the 

Corrosion Office transitions project results to the military departments but 

shows, as Corrosion Office officials stated, the collaborative efforts of the 

parties involved in the TCC program. We also noted in our report that 

Corrosion Office officials stated that it is difficult to transition results of the 

TCC projects to the military departments because outputs of TCC 

research are in the early stages of technology evolution and thus are not 

mature enough to be used by the military departments. Therefore, 

Corrosion Office officials acknowledged the need to establish a process 

to transition TCC results to the military departments. Furthermore, military 

departments’ Corrosion Executives, who are assigned to be the principal 

points of contact on corrosion issues, stated that none of the results from 

TCC projects have transitioned to the military departments. We maintain 

that the Corrosion Office should establish a process for transitioning 

demonstrated results of TCC projects to the military departments to allow 

the office to demonstrate the success of the TCC program and the extent 

to which the program results will help 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 

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 contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix V.

Zina D. Merritt

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

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

developed procedures for managing the Technical Corrosion 

Collaboration (TCC) program, we reviewed DOD’s guidance—the 2014 

DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan.

1 We also 

reviewed the TCC Definitions Document to identify DOD’s procedures for 

selecting and approving TCC projects. We compared DOD’s procedures 

for managing the TCC program with criteria in federal standards for 

internal control.2 We obtained information from universities participating in 

the TCC program regarding projects funded by the Office of Corrosion 

Policy and Oversight (hereafter referred to as the Corrosion Office) for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2013. We selected a nongeneralizable sample3

 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, 2011, and 2014.

of projects for further review. Specifically, we chose seven projects 

conducted by the five universities that received the most funding from the 

Corrosion Office. We determined that funding data from the Corrosion 

Office were sufficiently reliable for selecting a nongeneralizable sample of 

universities and projects for further review. The projects we reviewed 

were research projects that included examples of university project 

managers working with students to test corrosion of materials in different 

environments. We did not review the universities’ and other entities’

management of the corrosion projects. We used a semistructured 

interview tool to obtain information from project managers at the selected 

universities to further understand the Corrosion Office’s procedures and 

their implementation, and to identify successes and challenges, if any. 

2

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

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). Internal control is an integral component of an 

organization’s management that provides reasonable assurance that the following 

objectives are being achieved: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of 

financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

3

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

projects over various years and types of projects. 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.

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

Page 25 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

We requested and reviewed project-related documents, such as white 

papers,4 formal project proposals,5

To determine the extent to which DOD can provide information on the 

amount of funds it spent on the TCC program, we reviewed financial 

records such as documents that show funds the Corrosion Office 

provided to the universities and military research labs, and Military 

Interdepartmental Purchase Requests.

purchase requests, cooperative 

agreements, grants, and contracts to determine how projects were 

selected, approved, and funded. We also interviewed officials from the 

Corrosion Office, as well as representatives from each of the military 

departments, to understand how the procedures were implemented.

6

To determine the extent to which DOD established goals for TCC and 

transitioned demonstrated results from projects to the military 

departments, we reviewed DOD documents, such as DOD’s TCC 

Definitions Document and the 2014 DOD Corrosion Prevention and 

Mitigation Strategic Plan to identify goals of the TCC program, as well as 

We compared the Corrosion 

Office’s funding data with the purchase requests for fiscal years 2009 

through 2013 to identify any differences. We also examined Section 2228 

of Title 10 of the United States Code, which requires the Corrosion Office 

to submit an annual corrosion budget report that includes funds used for 

the TCC program. We further interviewed Corrosion Office officials to 

discuss the amount of funds DOD spent on TCC projects. Although we 

determined that data from the Corrosion Office were sufficiently reliable 

for selecting a nongeneralizable sample of universities and projects for 

further review, we found some funding data discrepancies and 

documentation issues, which we discuss in this report and make 

recommendations for corrective action.

 4

According to Corrosion Office officials, the white papers briefly explain how potential TCC 

participants would address military needs to prevent or mitigate corrosion. The papers 

include background information about the project, the technical approach for conducting 

the project, and collaborating entities, such as universities.

5

Formal proposals are more detailed than white papers. The proposals include information 

such as the technical issue to be addressed and the objective for the project, and describe 

university and military collaborations.

6

The Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request is a form used by a DOD requesting 

agency, such as the U.S. Air Force Academy, to place an order for, among other things, 

services, such as conducting research, with entities, including military academic 

institutions.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

any successes to date cited by DOD. We also examined Section 2228 of 

Title 10 of the United States Code, which requires the Secretary of 

Defense to develop and implement a long-term strategy that includes a 

plan to transition new corrosion-prevention technologies to military 

departments. We reviewed status reports obtained from Corrosion Office 

officials. We also attended the 2013 Annual TCC Review to obtain 

information on the status of projects from TCC participants, including 

researchers at universities and military research labs. We further 

interviewed corrosion-program officials to discuss the status of DOD’s 

efforts to transition project results to military departments.

We visited or contacted the following offices during our review. Unless 

otherwise specified, these organizations are located in or near 

Washington, D.C.

Department of Defense

• Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

Air Force

• Air Force Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado

• Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio

Army

• Army Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, 

Illinois

• Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Marine Corps / Navy

• Navy Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive

• U.S. Naval Academy

• Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

• Navy Research Laboratory
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Civilian Institutions

• University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

• University of Akron, Akron, Ohio

• University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi

• Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

• University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii

• SAFE, Inc., Monument, Colorado

We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to May 2014 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: Current List of Technical 

Corrosion Collaboration (TCC)–Affiliated 

Universities and Labs, as of February 2014

Page 28 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Universities:1

• University of Akron

Civilian institutions

• University of Southern Mississippi

• Ohio State University

• University of Virginia

• University of Hawaii

• Pennsylvania State University

• North Dakota State University

• SAFE, Inc.

• John Hopkins University

Universities: Military academic institutions

• U.S. Air Force Academy

• Air Force Institute of Technology

• Naval Postgraduate School

• U.S. Naval Academy

• U.S. Military Academy at West Point

• U.S. Coast Guard Academy

Military research labs

• U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

• U.S. Army Research Laboratory

• U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and 

Engineering Center

 1

The term “universities” includes civilian institutions and military academic institutions. 

Civilian institutions include public universities, a private university, and a commercial 

organization that conduct research. SAFE Inc. is the commercial organization that, among 

other things, conducts TCC projects for the U.S. Air Force Academy. Military academic 

institutions include military service academies (i.e., the U.S. Military Academy at West 

Point; the Naval Postgraduate School; and the Air Force Institute of Technology, a 

graduate school).

Appendix II: Current List of Technical 

Corrosion Collaboration (TCC)–Affiliated 

Universities and Labs, as of February 2014
Appendix II: Current List of Technical 

Corrosion Collaboration (TCC)–Affiliated 

Universities and Labs, as of February 2014

Page 29 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

• U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering 

Center

• U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory

• U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

• Naval Air Systems Command

• Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division

• Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center
Appendix III: Number of Students and 

Research Articles Produced as a Result of 

Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) 

Program Funding, as of January 2014

Page 30 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

TCC program participants 

(year initial funding received)

Number of graduatea

students who received

TCC funding

Number of undergraduateb

students who received

TCC funding

Number of research articles 

produced by recipients of 

TCC funding

Air Force Institute of 

Technology (2012)

1 0 2

U.S. Naval Academy (2012) 0 2 0

SAFE, Inc. (2009) 5 0 9

U.S. Air Force Academy (2011) 0 22 0

Ohio State University (2008) 20 5 8

University of Virginia (2008) 16 5 16

University of Hawaii (2008) 3 5 2

University of Southern 

Mississippi (2008)

10 9 10

University of Akron (2008) 9 15 5

Total 64 63 52

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight data.

Notes: Corrosion Office officials provided other examples produced as a result of TCC funding, which 

they cite as success stories, such as corrosion presentations made at conferences and the 

establishment of corrosion course curriculum at some learning institutions. For example, the 

University of Akron currently has an additional 60 students who are pursuing a corrosion engineering 

degree.

a

Graduate students’ degrees are more corrosion-focused than undergraduate students’ degrees. For 

example, they may be obtaining a “Materials Science” degree.

b

Undergraduate students are pursing degrees other than corrosion. The University of Akron is the 

only university that has an undergraduate corrosion degree program.

Appendix III: Number of Students and 

Research Articles Produced as a Result of 

Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) 

Program Funding, as of January 2014
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 31 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 32 GAO-14-437 Defense Research
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 33 GAO-14-437 Defense Research
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 34 GAO-14-437 Defense Research
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 35 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

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

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

Director; DuEwa Kamara; Gustavo Crosetto; Elizabeth Curda; Mark 

Dowling; Melissa Emrey-Arras; Dawn Godfrey; Lisa McMillen; Madhav 

Panwar; Richard Powelson; Terry Richardson; George Scott; Ryan 

Siegel; John Van Schaik; and Angela Watson made contributions to this 

report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 36 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

Defense Infrastructure: DOD’s 2013 Facilities Corrosion Study Addressed 

Reporting Elements.GAO-14-337R. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2014.

Defense Management: DOD Should Enhance Oversight of EquipmentRelated Corrosion Projects. GAO-13-661. Washington, D.C.: September 

9, 2013.

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.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 37 GAO-14-437 Defense Research

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 

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.

(351814)
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.