Defense Research: Improved Management of DOD's Technical Corrosion Collaboration Program Needed
Published: 2014-05-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported spending an  estimated $20.8 billion annually to prevent and mitigate corrosion of all of  its assets, including military equipment, weapons, facilities, and other  infrastructure. 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. 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.
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. According to Section 2228 and DOD Instruction 5000.67, 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. The  Corrosion Office also coordinates DOD-wide corrosion-prevention  activities such as operating the Corrosion Office website (hereafter  referred to as other corrosion-prevention and mitigation activities), 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).
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. 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. 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.
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  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. 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. 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 sample  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, formal  project proposals, 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.
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. 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 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.
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 corrosion- 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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).The Corrosion Office’s 2014 DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation  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.
The current TCC program includes 15 universities—civilian institutions  and military academic institutions to conduct projects in corrosion  issues 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.  —and nine military research labs that support the universities.
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   Additionally, military research  development, or prototype demonstration. 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.
The 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).
The 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.
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 more- detailed 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.
section_title: DOD Has Procedures for Managing Some Aspects of the TCC Program, but Lacks Documented Procedures for Approving TCC Projects
paragraphs: 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. 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 Plan in January 2014 to include the  minimum requirements and other factors to consider when selecting  projects to be funded under the TCC program. Prior to the revised 2014  strategic plan, according to Corrosion Office officials, they included the  process for selecting projects in the TCC Definitions Document, 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  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. 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  to submit formal proposals. 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 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.
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.
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.
section_title: The Corrosion Office Lacks Readily Available and Consistent Documentation on the Amount of Funds Used for the TCC Program
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  $69.5 million for the TCC program from fiscal years 2009 to 2012.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 corrosion- related activity funds. The office also cited a lack of resources to track  and maintain funding data when the program was initiated.
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. 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   We found that some funding data did not match for these years.
According 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 corrosion- prevention and mitigation activities.
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.
section_title: DOD Has Set Goals for the TCC Program, but Lacks a Process to Address Its Requirement to Transition Demonstrated Project Results to Military Departments
subsections: section_title: The Corrosion Office Has Established Two Goals for the TCC Program
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: TCC Has Helped Support the Education of Individuals on Corrosion Issues
paragraphs: 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  students and research papers 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.
section_title: The Corrosion Office Lacks a Process for Transitioning TCC’s Demonstrated Project Results to the Military Departments
paragraphs: 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  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.  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. 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.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.
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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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 sample  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.
We requested and reviewed project-related documents, such as white  papers, formal project proposals, 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight
Air Force Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive
U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado
Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Army Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,
Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
Navy Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive
U.S. Naval Academy
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California
Navy Research Laboratory
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Current List of Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC)–Affiliated Universities and Labs, as of February 2014
paragraphs: University of Southern Mississippi
North Dakota State University
SAFE, Inc.
section_title: Appendix III: Number of Students and Research Articles Produced as a Result of Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) Program Funding, as of January 2014
subsections: section_title: TCC program participants (year initial funding received) Air Force Institute of Technology (2012)
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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 Equipment- Related 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.
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.