DOD submitted the first version of its long-term corrosion strategy to Congress in December 2003. DOD developed this long-term strategy in response to direction in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. In November 2004, DOD revised its long-term corrosion strategy and issued its DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. DOD strives to update its strategic plan periodically, most recently in February 2011, and officials stated the next update in planned for 2013. The purpose of DOD’s strategic plan is to articulate policies, strategies, objectives and plans that will ensure an effective, standardized, affordable DOD-wide approach to prevent, detect and treat corrosion and its effects on military equipment and infrastructure. In January 2008, the department first issued DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, which was canceled and reissued with the same title in February 2010.policy, assign responsibilities, and provide guidance for the establishment and management of programs to prevent or mitigate corrosion of DOD’s military equipment and infrastructure. This instruction describes legislative requirements and assigns the Corrosion Executives responsibility for certain corrosion prevention and control activities in their respective military departments. It requires the Corrosion Executives to submit information on proposed corrosion projects to the Corrosion Office with coordination through the proper military department’s chain of command, as well as to develop support, and provide the rationale for resources to initiate and sustain effective corrosion prevention and mitigation programs in each military department. According to statute and DOD guidance, the Director of the Corrosion Office is responsible for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of DOD equipment and infrastructure. The Director’s duties include developing and recommending policy guidance on corrosion control, reviewing the corrosion-control programs and funding levels proposed by the Secretary of each military department during DOD’s internal annual budget review, and submitting recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding those programs and proposed funding levels. In addition, the Director of the Corrosion Office periodically holds meetings with the DOD Corrosion Board of Directors and serves as the lead on the Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team. The Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team includes representatives from the military departments, the Joint Staff, and other stakeholders who help accomplish the various corrosion-control goals and objectives. This team also includes the seven Working Integrated Product Teams which implement corrosion prevention and control activities. These seven product teams are organized to address the following areas: corrosion policy, processes, procedures and oversight; metrics, impact, and sustainment; specifications, standards, and qualification process; training and certification; communications and outreach; science and technology; and facilities. Appendix A of the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan contains action plans for each product team, including policies, objectives, strategies, planned actions and results to date. To accomplish its oversight and coordination responsibilities, the Corrosion Office has ongoing efforts to improve the awareness, prevention and mitigation of corrosion of military equipment and infrastructure, including (1) hosting triannual corrosion forums; (2) conducting cost-of-corrosion studies; (3) operating two corrosion websites; (4) publishing an electronic newsletter; (5) working with industry and academia to develop training courses and new corrosion technologies; and (6) providing funding for corrosion-control demonstration projects proposed and implemented by the military departments. According to the Corrosion Office, these corrosion activities enhance and institutionalize the corrosion prevention and mitigation program within DOD. To receive funding from the Corrosion Office, the military departments submit project plans for their proposed projects that are evaluated by a panel of experts assembled by the Director of the Corrosion Office. The Corrosion Office generally funds up to $500,000 per project, and the military departments generally pledge matching funding for each project that they propose. The level of funding by each military department and the estimated return on investment are two of the criteria used to evaluate the proposed projects. Appendix D of the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan includes instructions for submitting project plans, along with instructions for submission of final and follow-on reports. For the project selection process, the military departments submit preliminary project proposals in the fall and final project proposals in the spring, and the Corrosion Office considers the final proposals for funding. Projects that meet the Corrosion Office’s criteria for funding are announced at the end of the fiscal year. Figure 1 provides additional details of the project selection process for a given fiscal year. As part of the project selection process, DOD’s strategic plan states that the estimated return on investment, among other things, must be documented for each proposed project. The total cost for each project is based on both the funding requested from the Corrosion Office and the funding provided by the military departments. DOD records reflect varying estimated returns on investment and savings for each proposed project submitted by the military departments. According to the Corrosion Office, a senior official within each military department reviews the proposed projects, including the estimated return on investment, before the project plans are submitted to the Corrosion Office. Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Defense to include the expected return on investment that would be achieved by implementing the department’s long-term strategy for corrosion, including available validated data on return on investment for completed corrosion projects and activities, in his annual corrosion-control budget report to Congress. DOD’s strategic plan stipulates three reporting requirements for approved projects. According to Corrosion Office officials, the project managers typically are responsible for completing the reporting requirements. The requirements are to: (1) provide bimonthly or quarterly project updates until the project is completed, (2) submit a final report as soon as each project is completed, and (3) submit a follow-on report within two years after a project is completed and the technology has transitioned to use within the military department. Figure 2 provides a breakout of the number of projects that have reached various reporting milestones as of November 2012. There were 105 infrastructure-related corrosion projects funded from fiscal years 2005 through 2012, in which 41 projects had reached the milestone for submitting final and follow- on reports, including return-on-investment reassessments; 39 projects had reached only the milestone for submitting final 25 projects were not yet complete, thus they have not reached the milestone for submitting final or follow-on reports. In September 2012, we reported that the Corrosion Office performs an analysis to determine the average return-on-investment estimates for projects that it cites in its annual corrosion-control budget report to Congress. Additionally, we reported that the Corrosion Office did not use the most up-to-date data for the projects’ returns on investment or provide support for the projects’ average return on investment that was cited in its fiscal year 2013 corrosion-control budget report to Congress. We recommended that DOD provide an explanation of its return-on- investment methodology and analysis, including the initial and, to the extent available, the reassessed return-on-investment estimates. However, DOD did not agree with our recommendation. In its written comments, DOD generally restated the methodology in its strategic plan, which the military departments use to estimate the projected return on investment of each project. DOD did not provide any additional reasons why it did not use current return-on-investment estimates in its report to Congress. Additionally, in our December 2010 review, we recommended that DOD update applicable guidance, such as Instruction 5000.67, to further define the responsibilities of the Corrosion Executives to include more specific oversight and review of corrosion project plans before and during the selection process. However, DOD did not agree with our recommendation and stated that DOD-level policy documents are high- level documents that delineate responsibilities to carry out the policy and that specific implementing guidance is provided through separate documentation. Further, in some of our earlier work, we reported that the secretaries of the military departments did not have procedures and milestones to hold major commands and program offices accountable for achieving strategic goals to address corrosion regarding facilities and weapons systems. DOD agreed with our recommendations to define and incorporate measurable, outcome-oriented objectives and performance measures into its long-term corrosion mitigation strategy that show progress toward achieving results. Additionally, in May 2013 GAO issued a separate report assessing DOD’s and the military departments’ strategic plans. All the related GAO products are listed at the end of this report. DOD has not ensured that all final and follow-on reports on the results of its infrastructure-related corrosion projects were submitted as required by its strategic plan. As of November 2012, our review found that project managers had not submitted the required final reports for 50 of the 80 projects (over 60 percent) funded from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Also, for 41 of the 80 projects that were funded from 2005 through 2007, we found that the project managers had not submitted the required follow- on reports for more than a third of the projects (15 of the 41 projects). DOD’s Corrosion Office, the military departments’ Corrosion Executives, and the military departments’ project managers cited various reasons for not meeting reporting milestones. DOD’s Corrosion Office has not effectively used its existing authority to hold project management offices accountable for submitting required reports at prescribed milestones and the office lacks an effective method for tracking reports submitted by the project managers. Moreover, DOD has not provided clear guidance to the military departments’ Corrosion Executives on their responsibilities and authorities for assisting the Corrosion Office in holding their project management offices accountable for submitting reports for their infrastructure-related corrosion projects.