This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-379 
entitled 'Defense Management: Additional Information Needed to Improve 
Military Departments' Strategies for Corrosion Prevention and Control' 
which was released on May 16, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

May 2013: 

Defense Management: 

Additional Information Needed to Improve Military Departments' 
Strategies for Corrosion Prevention and Control: 

GAO-13-379: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-379, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Corrosion costs DOD billions of dollars annually by taking critical 
systems out of action and creating safety hazards. Recognizing the 
need for coordinated corrosion prevention and control efforts and 
planning, House Report 112-78 directed the military departments to 
develop corrosion prevention strategies that support the DOD Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. The House Report directed 
GAO to evaluate the long-term strategies developed by the Corrosion 
Executive of each military department and to report the findings to 
both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services 
Committee. GAO assessed the extent to which the military departments 
(1) coordinated with the Corrosion Office to ensure consistency of 
their strategic plans with DOD’s overarching goals and objectives and 
conformity with DOD Instruction 5000.67; and (2) included 
characteristics of a comprehensive strategic plan in their respective 
plans. GAO reviewed relevant legislation, the corrosion prevention 
strategic plans of DOD and the military departments, and interviewed 
DOD corrosion officials. 

What GAO Found: 

The military departments’ Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives 
(Corrosion Executives) coordinated with the Department of Defense’s 
(DOD) Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office (Corrosion Office) on 
reviews of their respective strategic plans. GAO’s prior work has 
found that linking the goals of component organizations to 
departmental strategic goals is a practice that, if consistently 
applied, should improve the usefulness of plans to decision makers. 
However, the military departments varied in the extent that their 
strategic plans show clear linkage to the 10 goals and objectives 
included in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic 
Plan. The Army’s strategic plan showed clear linkage to all 10 of the 
goals and objectives. The Air Force’s plan clearly linked to half of 
the goals and objectives and the Navy’s plan clearly linked to 3 of 
the goals and objectives. GAO’s review of the military departments’ 
strategic plans found no inconsistencies with DOD Instruction 5000.67, 
which establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides 
guidance for managing programs to prevent or mitigate corrosion. 
Without consistency or a clear linkage between the strategic plans of 
the military departments and the overarching goals and objectives in 
DOD’s strategic plan, the military departments’ strategies may not 
ensure that DOD achieves its overarching goals and objectives. 

The military departments’ strategic plans included or partially 
included the 6 key characteristics that aid in the development and 
implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan, but the military 
departments’ plans do not fully include some associated elements for 
comprehensive strategic plans—such as performance measures. In prior 
work, GAO identified 6 characteristics and 31 associated elements that 
comprehensive strategic plans should include. The Army plan fully 
included 2 of the 6 characteristics related to problem definition and 
risk assessment—problems and threats the strategy is directed towards—
and also integration of the strategy (i.e., how a strategy relates to 
other strategies). The Navy plan fully included 1 of the 6 
characteristics related to the problem definition and risk assessment. 
The Air Force partially included all 6 of the characteristics. For 
example, the Air Force plan described some, but not all, aspects of 
the characteristic on organizational roles, responsibilities, and 
coordination—who will be implementing the strategy, what their roles 
will be compared to others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate 
their efforts. However, none of the military departments’ plans 
included the elements on outcome-related performance measures used to 
gauge results or the limitations on performance measures. Of the 31 
associated elements, the Army fully included 24 elements in its 
strategic plan; the Air Force, 8; and the Navy, 9. By relying on 
strategic plans that do not fully include the elements-—such as 
performance measures-—the military departments may not identify and 
communicate important information to corrosion stakeholders and 
decision makers to monitor and assess the departments’ progress in 
preventing and mitigating corrosion. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making two recommendations to improve future updates of the 
military departments’ strategic plans for corrosion prevention and 
control. DOD did not concur with the recommendations. DOD stated that 
the military departments’ plans linked to overarching goals and 
objectives and disagreed with the criteria GAO used to assess the 
plans. GAO continues to believe that these recommendations are valid 
as discussed in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-379]. For more 
information, contact Zina Merritt at (202) 512-5257 or 
merrittz@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Military Departments Coordinated with the Corrosion Office on Reviews 
of Their Strategic Plans, but the Plans Varied in Their Consistency 
with DOD's Goals and Objectives: 

Military Departments' Strategic Plans Included or Partially Included 6 
Key Characteristics for Comprehensive Strategic Plans, but Do Not 
Include Many Elements Related to Measuring Performance: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on the Department of Defense's Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

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

Figures: 

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

Figure 2: Extent to Which the Military Departments' Strategic Plans 
Are Consistent with the Goals and Objectives of DOD's Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan: 

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

Abbreviations: 

AT&L: Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FY: Fiscal Year: 

U.S.C. United States Code: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 16, 2013: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

In 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported that corrosion cost 
the department about $20.8 billion annually[Footnote 1] for military 
equipment and infrastructure.[Footnote 2] Corrosion can negatively 
affect all military assets, including both equipment and 
infrastructure, and is defined as the deterioration of a material or 
its properties due to a reaction of that material with its 
environment.[Footnote 3] Corrosion also affects military readiness by 
taking critical equipment and infrastructure out of action, and 
creates safety hazards. 

Congress has taken a series of legislative actions aimed at enhancing 
DOD's ability to effectively address corrosion prevention and control 
and provide the Congress with greater transparency over the 
department's efforts. In 2002, Congress passed legislation that led to 
the creation of the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight 
(hereafter referred to as the Corrosion Office) within the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics (AT&L).[Footnote 4] The Corrosion Office is responsible for 
the prevention and mitigation of corrosion of military equipment and 
infrastructure. In 2008, Congress directed the military departments 
(Army, Navy,[Footnote 5] and Air Force) to designate a Corrosion 
Control and Prevention Executive (hereafter referred to as Corrosion 
Executive) to be the senior official in the department responsible for 
coordinating corrosion prevention and control activities with the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and within the department.[Footnote 
6] 

In House Report 112-78,[Footnote 7] the House Armed Services Committee 
directed the Corrosion Executive of each military department to 
develop a long-term strategy by April 1, 2012, for addressing 
corrosion prevention and control within the military departments. The 
committee directed that the military departments' strategies should 
support the existing DOD-level strategy published by the Director of 
the Corrosion Office. Additionally, the committee directed that the 
military departments' strategies should include all areas of 
responsibility for the Corrosion Executive as described in section 
2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and that each military 
department's Corrosion Executive should coordinate the long-term 
strategy with DOD's Corrosion Office to assure consistency[Footnote 8] 
with overarching DOD strategies[Footnote 9] and conformity to DOD 
Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD 
Military Equipment and Infrastructure.[Footnote 10] The DOD 
instruction establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides 
guidance for the establishment and management of programs to prevent 
or mitigate corrosion of DOD's military equipment and infrastructure. 

The House Report directed GAO to evaluate the long-term strategies 
developed by the Corrosion Executive of each military department and 
to report the findings to the Senate Armed Services Committee and to 
the House Armed Services Committee. This report addresses (1) the 
extent that the military departments' long-term corrosion strategies 
were coordinated with DOD's Corrosion Office to ensure consistency 
with the goals and objectives contained in the DOD Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and conformity with DOD 
Instruction 5000.67; and (2) the extent that the military departments' 
strategies include characteristics for a comprehensive strategic plan. 

To evaluate the extent to which the Corrosion Executives of the 
military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) coordinated with 
DOD's Corrosion Office to ensure consistency with the goals and 
objectives of DOD's strategic plan and conformity with DOD Instruction 
5000.67, we used a combination of methodologies. To determine the 
degree of coordination between the military departments and the 
Corrosion Office in developing their respective strategic plans, we 
interviewed Corrosion Office and military department officials and 
also reviewed documentation related to coordination. To determine the 
extent of consistency between the strategic plans of the military 
departments[Footnote 11] and the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 
Mitigation Strategic Plan, we analyzed DOD's strategic plan and met 
with Corrosion Office officials to identify their goals and 
objectives. Based on our analysis and discussions with Corrosion 
Office officials, we identified and DOD officials agreed on 10 
corrosion goals and objectives that were relevant to the military 
departments.[Footnote 12] We then used a scorecard methodology to 
assess each military strategy for consistency with the goals and 
objectives we identified in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 
Mitigation Strategic Plan. To determine the extent to which the 
military departments' strategic plans conform to DOD Instruction 
5000.67, we analyzed the military strategies to determine whether they 
include a reference to DOD Instruction 5000.67 as DOD's corrosion 
prevention and mitigation policy. We also created a set of structured 
questions that asked how each military department's strategy conformed 
to the policies and responsibilities in the DOD instruction and 
submitted the questions to each military department. We reviewed the 
responses to determine the extent to which the military departments' 
strategies conform to DOD Instruction 5000.67, and conducted follow-up 
interviews with officials to obtain clarification. 

To evaluate the extent to which the military departments' corrosion 
prevention strategies include key characteristics and associated 
elements for a comprehensive strategic plan, we assessed the military 
strategies using the characteristics and elements of comprehensive 
strategies developed in previous GAO work.[Footnote 13] We used a 
scorecard methodology to assess the strategic plans and assign an 
overall assessment for each characteristic and associated element. 
After assessing the plans for the presence of these characteristics 
and elements, we then met with representatives from each of the 
military departments to discuss our assessments and gather further 
information from them on their strategic plans, including whether 
these characteristics and elements were described in other 
departmental corrosion documents. Based on these discussions, we 
revised our assessments when officials provided clarification and 
documentation to justify a change. 

We found the information that we reviewed to be sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of assessing consistency of plans with overarching 
departmental strategies and DOD instructions. We conducted this 
performance audit from September 2012 to May 2013 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides more 
details on our scope and methodology. 

Background: 

Guidance for Corrosion Activities: 

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.[Footnote 14] In June 2004, we reviewed DOD's 
long-term corrosion strategy.[Footnote 15] We found that the strategy 
generally addressed the requirements identified in the law (e.g., 
policy guidance, performance measures and milestones, and an 
assessment of the necessary funding and personnel), but it was not a 
comprehensive plan that officials could use successfully to implement 
strategy and to manage DOD's extensive corrosion problems in the 
future. We recommended that DOD address certain shortcomings in 
funding, performance measures, and policy that we identified in its 
plan, and DOD concurred with our recommendations. Appendix II provides 
more information on our recommendations and DOD's actions to implement 
them. In November 2004, DOD revised its long-term corrosion strategy 
and issued its DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. 
This plan has been updated periodically, most recently in February 
2011. According to DOD corrosion officials, they strive to update the 
plan every two years and intend to update the strategic plan in 2013. 
The purpose of the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic 
Plan is to articulate policies, strategies, objectives and plans that 
will ensure an effective, standardized, affordable DOD-wide approach 
to prevent, detect and treat corrosion and its effects on military 
equipment and infrastructure. The plan also includes the action plans 
for the various Working-level Integrated Product Teams.[Footnote 16] 
Also, in February 2010, DOD reissued DOD Instruction 5000.67,[Footnote 
17] which provides specific guidance and responsibilities for the 
Corrosion Office and military departments to establish and manage 
corrosion-prevention programs. The responsibilities cited in the DOD 
instruction include, but are not limited to, those established in 
section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code. Figure 1 
illustrates DOD's corrosion organization. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart] 

Top level: 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Second level, reporting to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics: 
* Assistant Secretary of Defense, Logistics and Materiel Readiness; 
* Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering; 
* Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and Environment; 
* Assistant Secretary of Defense, Acquisition. 

Third level, reporting to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics; coordinating with second level offices: 
* Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight: 
- Business staff; 
- Technical staff; 
- Army Corrosion Executive; 
- Air Force Corrosion Executive; 
- Navy Corrosion Executive. 

Fourth level, reporting to Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight: 
* DOD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team. 

Fifth level, reporting to DOD Corrosion Prevention and Control 
Integrated Product Team: 
* Working-level integrated product teams (WIPTs): 
- Corrosion Policy, Procedures and Oversight; 
- Outreach and Communications; 
- Facilities; 
- Metrics, Impact, and Sustainment; 
- Training and Certification; 
- Specification, Standards and Qualification Process; 
- Science and Technology. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of figure] 

Corrosion Executives' Duties: 

Congress prescribed the duties of the military departments' Corrosion 
Executives in Section 903 of the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009.[Footnote 18] These duties include ensuring 
that corrosion prevention and control is maintained in each 
department's policy and guidance for management of (1) system 
acquisition and production, including design and maintenance; (2) 
research, development, test, and evaluation programs and activities; 
(3) equipment standardization programs, including international 
standardization agreements; (4) logistics research and development 
initiatives; (5) logistics support analysis as it relates to 
integrated logistic support in the materiel acquisition process; and 
(6) military infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance. 
Also, the legislation states that the Corrosion Executives shall be 
responsible for identifying the funding necessary to accomplish their 
duties. Further, the legislation states that the Corrosion Executive 
must develop, support, and provide the rationale for resources to 
initiate and sustain an effective corrosion prevention and control 
program in the department; evaluate the program's effectiveness; and 
ensure that corrosion prevention and control requirements for materiel 
are reflected in budgeting and policies of the department for the 
formulation, management, and evaluation of personnel and programs for 
the entire department, including its reserve components. Finally, each 
Corrosion Executive must serve as the respective department's 
principal point of contact to the Director of the Corrosion Office, 
and submit an annual corrosion report to the Secretary of Defense. 

Military Departments' Strategic Plans: 

To address direction from the House Armed Services Committee,[Footnote 
19] each military department submitted a strategic plan for corrosion 
prevention and control to the Corrosion Office. House Report 112-78 in 
May 2011 directed the military departments to coordinate with the 
Corrosion Office to ensure consistency of their respective strategic 
plans with DOD's overarching goals and objectives and conformity with 
DOD Instruction 5000.67. The Navy and Army submitted strategic plans 
that were revisions to existing corrosion prevention and control 
plans. In 2010, the Navy issued a strategic plan for corrosion control 
and prevention and included the plan in its annual corrosion 
report.[Footnote 20] Navy officials revised this strategic plan and 
included it as an annex to their annual corrosion report for 2011. The 
Navy's annual report includes some specific Corrosion Executive duties 
and mentions section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code as the 
legislation that contains the Corrosion Executive's duties. Also, the 
Army first issued a strategic plan in March 2011 that the department 
used to guide its corrosion prevention and control efforts. Army 
officials revised the strategic plan and reissued it in April 2012. 
The Army's plan identifies all duties of the Corrosion Executive as 
specified in section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code. 
Further, the Air Force issued its initial strategic plan in May of 
2012, shortly after filling its vacant Corrosion Executive position. 
The Air Force's strategic plan includes a reference to section 2228 of 
Title 10 of the United States Code as the legislation that identifies 
the duties of the Corrosion Executive. 

Military Departments Coordinated with the Corrosion Office on Reviews 
of Their Strategic Plans, but the Plans Varied in Their Consistency 
with DOD's Goals and Objectives: 

The military departments' Corrosion Executives coordinated[Footnote 
21] with DOD's Corrosion Office on reviews of their respective 
strategic plans; however, the military departments varied in the 
extent that their strategic plans show clear linkage to the 10 goals 
and objectives included in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation 
Strategic Plan. Our comprehensive review found that only the Army's 
strategic plan linked to all of DOD's goals and objectives. The Air 
Force's and Navy's strategic plans linked to some, but not all, of 
DOD's goals and objectives. Without consistency and clear linkage 
between the strategic plans of the military departments and the 
overarching goals and objectives from DOD's strategic plan, the 
military departments' strategies may not ensure that DOD achieves its 
overarching goals and objectives. Additionally, our review of the 
military departments' strategic plans confirmed the Corrosion Office's 
determination that there were no inconsistencies with DOD Instruction 
5000.67. 

Military Departments' Corrosion Strategies Varied in Their Degree of 
Consistency with DOD's Goals and Objectives: 

We found that the military departments' strategic plans differed in 
their extent of consistency and linkage to DOD's overarching goals and 
objectives. Our prior work has found that linking the goals of 
component organizations to departmental strategic goals is a practice 
that, if consistently applied, should improve the usefulness of plans 
to congressional and other decision makers.[Footnote 22] Between 
December 2011 and May 2012, the Corrosion Executives of the military 
departments submitted their plans to the Corrosion Office, and the 
Corrosion Office reviewed each of those plans and determined that 
there were no inconsistencies with DOD's overarching goals and 
objectives. For example, one overarching goal and objective in the DOD 
Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan is conducting 
focused corrosion prevention and mitigation training tailored to 
learning requirements at each management and technical level in the 
military department. According to Corrosion Office officials, had 
there been some aspect of a military department's plan that 
contradicted DOD's goal of providing corrosion prevention and 
mitigation training, that would have been unacceptable. 

We found the following in our assessment of consistency between the 
military departments' strategic plans and the overarching goals and 
objectives in the DOD strategic plan: 

* The Army's strategic plan is consistent with and links with all 10 
of DOD's goals and objectives and cites the DOD Corrosion Prevention 
and Mitigation Strategic Plan as part of the guidance that influenced 
the content of the Army's plan. For example, the plan is consistent 
with and links with DOD's goal of corrosion research and development 
efforts on material and manufacturing processes because the Army's 
plan clearly cited the need to adapt commercial technologies to 
prevent or reduce the incidence and effects of corrosion. 

* The Air Force's strategic plan is consistent with and links with 5 
of 10 of DOD's overarching goals and objectives, and is partially 
consistent with 4 of 10 goals and objectives. For example, the plan is 
consistent with and links with DOD's goal of attacking corrosion early 
in the acquisition or construction cycle because the plan clearly 
described that its focus is to incorporate corrosion prevention, 
control, and mitigation in the weapon system and infrastructure life 
cycle. In addition, we found that the Air Force's plan is partially 
consistent with some of DOD's goals and objectives. For example, the 
Air Force's plan acknowledges a general need for training and 
technology, but the plan does not state the specific level at which 
the training should be accomplished. Lastly, the Air Force's plan did 
not describe DOD's goal on modernizing corrosion specifications, 
standards, and other requirements. Air Force officials acknowledged 
that the department could benefit from more military corrosion 
specifications. 

* The Navy's strategic plan is consistent with and links with only 3 
of 10 of DOD's overarching goals and objectives, and is partially 
consistent with 2 of 10 goals and objectives. For example, the Navy's 
plan is consistent with and links with DOD's goal to attack corrosion 
early in the acquisition cycle because the plan clearly described how 
the most proactive approach to mitigating corrosion is a commitment to 
corrosion prevention and control early in the acquisition cycle. We 
also found that the Navy's plan is partially consistent with some of 
DOD's goals and objectives. For example, the Navy's plan acknowledges 
DOD's goal of establishing communication channels on all aspects of 
corrosion from every organization within the military and industry 
communities. We found that this was partially consistent because the 
Navy's plan did not include goals to establish communication channels 
for the national and international communities. Also, the Navy's 
strategic plan did not contain evidence of consistency with 5 of DOD's 
goals and objectives. For example, the Navy's plan did not mention 
modernizing corrosion specifications and standards.[Footnote 23] Also, 
focusing research and development efforts on coatings, treatments, and 
other applications to prevent corrosion was not mentioned. 

Figure 2 summarizes the extent to which the military departments' long-
term strategic plans for corrosion prevention and control are 
consistent with and link with the goals and objectives of DOD's 
strategic plan. 

Figure 2: Extent to Which the Military Departments' Strategic Plans 
Are Consistent with the Goals and Objectives of DOD's Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Areas of Consistency: 

DOD goals and objectives: 

Attacking corrosion early in the acquisition or construction cycle 
during design, manufacture and assembly: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Consistent; 
Navy: Consistent. 

Focusing life-cycle corrosion research and development efforts on 
materials and manufacturing processes that prevent or reduce the 
incidence and effects of corrosion: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Consistent; 
Navy: Not consistent. 

Focusing life-cycle corrosion research and development efforts on 
detection of the incidence, nature, and severity of corrosion in 
fielded systems and facilities; and prognosis of the expected growth 
progression, potential impact and predicted effects of mitigation 
actions: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Partially consistent; 
Navy: Not consistent. 

Focusing life-cycle corrosion research and development efforts on 
coatings, treatments and other applications to prevent, arrest or 
retard corrosion: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Partially consistent; 
Navy: Not consistent. 

Focusing life-cycle corrosion research and development efforts on 
repair processes that restore corroded materials to an acceptable 
level of structural integrity and functionality: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Consistent; 
Navy: Not consistent. 

Establish or convey communication channels to receive and convey all 
aspects of corrosion - nature, impact, approaches and results - from 
and to every organization within the military department and industry 
sectors as well as national and international communities: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Partially consistent; 
Navy: Partially consistent. 

Modernizing corrosion specifications, standards and other requirements 
and developing standard, streamlined product introduction processes 
for suppliers of corrosion-prevention technologies and products: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Not consistent; 
Navy: Not consistent. 

Conducting studies and surveys, collecting data and analyzing results 
to determine the impact of corrosion, pinpointing critical areas for 
concentration of prevention and mitigation efforts, and developing 
metrics to measure impact of corrosion and results of prevention and 
mitigation efforts: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Consistent; 
Navy: Partially consistent. 

Publishing and distributing direction and guidance that provides 
adequate details and instructions regarding implementation of 
corrosion prevention and mitigation policies and strategies and 
applies to all levels of leadership and management in the military 
department: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Consistent; 
Navy: Consistent. 

Conducting focused corrosion prevention and mitigation training 
tailored to leaning requirements at each management and technical 
level in the military department: 
Army: Consistent; 
Air Force: Partially consistent; 
Navy: Consistent. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: We considered a military department's plan to be "consistent" 
when the plan explicitly described all parts, "partially consistent" 
when the plan described some aspects, and "not consistent" when the 
plan did not explicitly cite any part of a DOD goal and objective in 
its strategic plan. 

[End of figure] 

In interviews during our review, Corrosion Office officials stated 
that they did not provide guidance to the departments while they were 
developing their strategies because it is the policy of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for AT&L to allow the military departments the 
freedom to manage any issue not specifically identified as a 
responsibility of AT&L pursuant to section 133 of Title 10 of the 
United States Code. In interviews, the Corrosion Executives also 
stated that the military departments' strategic plans should not have 
to be consistent with DOD's strategic plan because they have not been 
given the opportunity to provide input to DOD's plan. However, 
Corrosion Office officials stated that representatives from the 
military departments reviewed the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 
Mitigation Strategic Plan when it was initially issued, and that the 
Corrosion Executives can provide input to DOD's plan at any time. 
Without consistency and clear linkage between the strategic plans of 
the military departments and the overarching goals and objectives in 
DOD's strategic plan, the military departments' strategies may not 
ensure that DOD achieves its overarching goals and objectives. 

Military Corrosion Prevention Strategies Conform to DOD Instruction 
5000.67: 

The Corrosion Office reviewed the military departments' strategic 
plans and found no inconsistencies between any department's plan and 
DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD 
Military Equipment and Infrastructure. DOD Instruction 5000.67 
establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance 
for managing programs to prevent or mitigate corrosion. For example, 
the instruction states that it is DOD policy that corrosion prevention 
and control programs and preservation techniques shall be implemented 
throughout the life cycle of all military equipment and 
infrastructure. It further states that it is the responsibility of the 
Corrosion Executives to support the Corrosion Office's Integrated 
Product Team process. We reviewed the military departments' strategic 
plans for references to the instruction as DOD's corrosion policy, and 
also obtained input from the Corrosion Executives regarding specific 
areas of conformity. We did not find any inconsistencies with DOD 
Instruction 5000.67. For example, we found: 

* The Army and the Air Force plans included a reference to DOD 
Instruction 5000.67 as DOD's guiding policy on corrosion. The Navy 
also acknowledged that DOD Instruction 5000.67 is DOD policy with 
which it must comply. 

* All of the plans described how each military department will support 
the Corrosion Office's Integrated Product Team process, which is one 
of the responsibilities identified in the DOD instruction. 

* All of the plans described actions--corrosion prevention and control 
programs and preservation techniques--that the military departments 
are taking to address corrosion throughout the life cycle of military 
equipment and infrastructure. 

Military Departments' Strategic Plans Included or Partially Included 6 
Key Characteristics for Comprehensive Strategic Plans, but Do Not 
Include Many Elements Related to Measuring Performance: 

The military departments' strategic plans fully included or partially 
included the 6 key characteristics that aid in the development and 
implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan, but the departments' 
plans do not include many of the associated elements for comprehensive 
strategic plans--specifically, elements relating to performance 
measures. Based on our previous work, we have identified 6 key 
characteristics that comprehensive strategic plans should address, 
including 31 elements within those characteristics.[Footnote 24] The 6 
key characteristics are: (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) 
problem definition and risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate 
objectives, activities, and performance measures; (4) resources, 
investments, and risk management; (5) organizational roles, 
responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration. These 
characteristics and elements are intended to aid responsible parties 
in further developing and implementing the strategies--and to enhance 
their usefulness in resource and policy decisions and to better assure 
accountability.[Footnote 25] 

We assessed the extent to which the military departments' strategic 
plans included, partially included, or did not include the 6 key 
characteristics. Our assessment of the departments' plans found that: 

* The Army fully included 2 and partially included 4 key 
characteristics. For example, the Army plan described the 
characteristic regarding problem definition and risk assessment, as 
well as the characteristic of integration. However, the Army plan 
described only some aspects of 4 key characteristics. For instance, 
regarding the purpose, scope, and methodology characteristic--why the 
strategy was produced, the scope of its coverage, and the process by 
which it was developed--the Army plan described only partially what 
organizations or offices drafted the strategy or were consulted in its 
development. Also, the Army plan described only partially the 
characteristic related to organizational roles, responsibilities, and 
coordination--who will implement the strategy, what their roles will 
be compared to others, and the mechanisms for them to coordinate their 
efforts. For example, the Army plan describes how it will coordinate 
within the department, but describes only partially how it will 
coordinate with other departments. 

* The Air Force partially included all 6 key characteristics. For 
example, the Air Force partially included the characteristic on goals, 
subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures. 
Specifically, the plan included activities to achieve results, but did 
not include performance measures to gauge results. Also, we found that 
the Air Force plan described some, but not all, aspects of 
organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination. For example, 
we found that the Air Force plan identifies the lead, support, and 
partner roles for corrosion prevention, but it does not identify the 
responsibilities of each department or office that it cited. 

* The Navy fully included 1 and partially included 5 key 
characteristics. For example, the Navy plan described the problem 
definition and risk assessment characteristic by specifically citing 
the problems the strategy is intended to address, the causes of the 
problems, and the operating environment which are elements of this 
characteristic. We also found that the Navy partially included the 
characteristic on goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and 
performance measures. For example, the plan included specific 
activities to achieve results, but did not include performance 
measures to gauge results. Also, the Navy plan described only 
partially the key characteristic regarding integration--how a strategy 
relates to other strategies' goals, objectives and activities--because 
the plan described only some aspects of how the corrosion strategy 
related to DOD's overarching strategies, goals and objectives. 

Additionally, using our scorecard methodology,[Footnote 26] we 
determined the extent to which the military departments included the 
31 associated elements and found that: 

* The Army's corrosion plan included 24 of the 31 elements, partially 
included another 5 elements, and did not include 2 elements. 

* The Air Force's corrosion plan included 8 of the 31 elements, 
partially included 17 elements, and did not include 6 elements. 

* The Navy's corrosion plan included 9 of 31 elements, partially 
included 12 elements, and did not include 10 elements. 

Figure 3 summarizes the extent to which the military departments' 
strategic plans for corrosion prevention and control include the 6 key 
characteristics and the 31 associated elements for strategic plans. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Key characteristics and elements: 

Purpose, scope, and methodology: Why the strategy was produced, the 
scope of its coverage, and the process by which it was developed: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

1. The impetus that led to the strategy being written, such as a 
statutory requirement, mandate, or key event: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

2. The strategy's purpose: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Included. 

3. Key terms, major functions, mission areas, or activities the 
strategy covers: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Included. 

4. The process that produced the strategy, (e,g" what organizations or 
offices drafted the document, whether it was the result of a working 
group, or which parties were consulted in its development): 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Not included. 

Problem definition and risk assessment: The particular problems and 
threats the strategy is directed towards: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Included. 

5. The problems the strategy intends to address: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Included. 

6. The causes of the problems: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Included. 

7. The operating environment: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Included. 

8. The threats the strategy is directed towards: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Included. 

9. The quality of data available, e,g" constraints, deficiencies, and 
"unknowns": 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Included. 

Goals, subordinate objectives,activities, and performance measures: 
What the strategy is trying to achieve, steps to achieve those 
results, as well as, the priorities, milestones, and performance 
measures to gauge results: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

10. The overall results desired, i.e, an end state: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

11. Strategic goals and subordinate objectives: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

12. Specific activities to achieve results: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Included; 
Navy: Included. 

13. Priorities: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

14. Milestones: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Not included; 
Navy: Not included. 

15. Output-related performance measures: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Not included; 
Navy: Not included. 

16. Outcome-related performance measures: 
Army: Not included. 
Air Force: Not included; 
Navy: Not included. 

17. The process to monitor and report on progress: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Not included. 

18. The limitations on performance measures: 
Army: Not included. 
Air Force: Not included. 
Navy: Not included. 

Resources, investments, and risk management: What the strategy will 
cost; the sources and types of resources and investment needed, and 
where resources and investments should be targeted by balancing risk 
reductions and costs: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included; 

i9. The cost of the strategy: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Not included. 

20. The sources (e.g., federal, international, and private) of 
resources or investments: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

21. The types of sources or investments needed (e.g. budgetary, human 
capital, information technology, research and development, contracts): 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

22. Where resources or investments should be targeted to balance risks 
and costs: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

23. Resource allocation mechanisms: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

24. How risk management will aid implementing parties in prioritizing 
and allocating resources: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Not included. 
Navy: Not included. 

Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination: Who will be 
implementing the strategy, what their roles will be compared to 
others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate their efforts: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

25. Who will be implementing the strategy: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Included. 

26. Lead, support, and partner roles and responsibilities of specific 
federal agencies, departments. or offices: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Included. 

27. Which organizations will provide the overall framework for 
oversight and accountability: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

28. How they will coordinate within their department: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Not included. 

29. How they will coordinate with other departments: 
Army: Partially included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

30. The process for how conflicts will be resolved: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Not included; 
Navy: Not included. 

Integration: How a strategy relates to other strategies, goals, 
objectives and activities - and to subordinate levels of government 
and their plans to implement the strategy: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

31. Addresses how the corrosion strategy relates to the department's 
overarching strategies, goals and objectives: 
Army: Included; 
Air Force: Partially included; 
Navy: Partially included. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Notes: We determined that a military department's strategy "included" 
the key characteristic or element if the plan described all the 
characteristics and elements. We assessed a characteristic or element 
as "partially included" if the plan described some aspects of the 
characteristic or element. If a plan did not explicitly describe any 
aspect of the characteristic or element, we determined that the 
characteristic or element was "not included" in the military 
department's strategy. 

In assessing the integration characteristic, we used our results from 
assessing the consistency, if any, between a military department's 
strategic plan and DOD's overarching goals and objectives (See figure 
2). 

[End of figure] 

All military departments' strategic plans included the elements on key 
terms, major functions, mission areas, or activities that the 
strategies cover, the purpose, the threats the strategy is directed 
toward, the problems the strategy is intended to address, and the 
causes of these problems. Further, each department's plan partially 
included 3 additional elements. For example, each plan partially 
included the element describing how the department will coordinate 
with other departments. 

However, no departmental plan included the 2 elements describing 
outcome-related performance measures[Footnote 27] and their 
limitations. Based on our prior work, outcome-related measures are an 
assessment of the results of a program activity compared to its 
intended purpose. Also, performance measurement is the ongoing 
monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments--in particular 
progress toward preestablished goals. Further, another element is 
output-related measures, which are the direct products and services 
delivered by a program. These measures include tabulations, 
calculations, or recording of activities or efforts, and can be 
expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner. The Army's plan 
included output-related performance measures. Specifically, the Army's 
plan included an output-related performance measure to review and 
update the corrosion prevention aspects of at least 10 percent of its 
publications each year. Also, the Army's plan identified several other 
performance metrics, but some of these metrics are not expressed in 
measurable form. For example, one metric that the Army's plan 
identified is to develop a standard process for conducting corrosion 
surveys and executing pilot surveys for both equipment and 
infrastructure. The Air Force and Navy plans did not include output-
related performance measures. 

In interviews, the Air Force's Corrosion Executive stated that the 
department did not have an appointed Corrosion Executive for over a 
year, so the department did not have leadership in place to develop a 
long-term strategic plan that contained all of the elements. The 
Navy's Corrosion Executive stated that the Navy did not include many 
of the elements in its strategic plan because those elements are 
contained in other departmental documentation, such as the Navy's 
annual corrosion report. In reviewing the Navy's annual report and 
other documentation, we found that some of the elements were present, 
such as how the Navy will coordinate corrosion issues within the 
department; however, some elements were not present, such as 
performance measures.[Footnote 28] An Army official representing the 
Corrosion Executive stated that the Army's plan did not include 
outcome-related performance measures because of difficulty in 
developing them. By relying on strategic plans without performance 
measures, resource allocations, and other elements for effective 
strategic plans, the military departments may not identify and 
communicate important information to corrosion stakeholders and 
decision makers to monitor and assess the departments' progress in 
preventing and mitigating corrosion. 

Conclusions: 

For about a decade, Congress has required additional oversight and 
transparency for DOD's spending of billions of dollars a year on 
corrosion prevention and control activities. For example, in House 
Report 112-78, the House Armed Services Committee directed the 
Corrosion Executive of each military department to develop a long-term 
strategy for addressing corrosion prevention and control and to align 
each strategy with the goals and objectives of the DOD Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Our review found that the 
military departments varied in the extent that their respective 
strategic plans clearly linked with the goals and objectives of the 
DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Prior GAO work 
has found that aligning departmental goals with agency-wide goals and 
objectives is a key practice that could improve the usefulness of 
plans to DOD in its efforts to effectively prevent and mitigate 
corrosion. Without consistency and clear linkage between the strategic 
plans of the military departments and the overarching goals and 
objectives in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic 
Plan, the military departments' strategies may not succeed in helping 
DOD achieve its overarching goals and objectives. 

In addition, the military departments' strategic plans for corrosion 
prevention and control included some of the 6 key characteristics and 
31 associated elements of a comprehensive strategic plan, but were 
missing some aspects of some key characteristics and elements. For 
example, none of the plans contain outcome-related performance 
measures or limitations of performance measures, which our prior work 
has shown are elements to aid responsible parties to fully develop and 
implement their strategies. Prior GAO work has found that these 
measures can provide decision makers with insights on the 
accomplishments of the military departments' corrosion programs. By 
executing strategic plans without elements such as performance 
measures, the military departments may not be able to determine the 
success or gauge the progress of their activities to prevent and to 
mitigate corrosion. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that the military departments' future strategic plans to 
address corrosion demonstrate consistency and a clear linkage to DOD's 
corrosion goals and objectives, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy to direct the 
Corrosion Executives to include in their next update of their 
strategic plans clear linkage to DOD's overarching goals and 
objectives as described in DOD's strategic plan. 

To ensure that the military departments' strategic plans to address 
corrosion include key characteristics of a comprehensive strategic 
plan, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and 
Navy direct the Corrosion Executives to develop and include all six 
key characteristics of a comprehensive strategic plan, including but 
not limited to elements relating to performance measures. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In 
its written comments, which are reprinted in appendix III, DOD did not 
agree with our two recommendations. 

DOD did not concur with our recommendation that the Air Force and Navy 
Corrosion Executives include in their next update of their strategic 
plans clear linkage to DOD's overarching goals and objectives as 
described in DOD's strategic plan. DOD responded that the Director, 
Corrosion Policy and Oversight reviewed the military departments' 
corrosion strategic plans and determined their strategies were 
sufficiently linked to specific performance goals and consistent with 
DOD's overarching goals and objectives. During our review, Corrosion 
Office officials told us that they reviewed the military departments' 
plans only for consistency with the DOD strategic plan. For example, 
Corrosion Office officials stated that one overarching goal and 
objective in the DOD strategic plan is related to training and had 
there been some aspect of a military department's plan that was 
antitraining that would have been unacceptable. However, we found that 
the Corrosion Office's review did not ensure the military departments' 
plans linked with all of DOD's overarching goals and objectives. 
Specifically, we found that the military departments' strategies 
differed in their extent of consistency and linkage to the 10 
overarching goals and objectives in DOD's strategic plan. Our 
assessment found the Air Force's plan was consistent with and linked 
with 5 of 10 of DOD's overarching goals and objectives, and was 
partially consistent with 4 of 10 goals and objectives. We also found 
the Navy's plan was consistent with and linked with only 3 of 10 of 
DOD's overarching goals and objectives, and was partially consistent 
with 2 of 10 goals and objectives. We maintain that linking the goals 
of component organizations to departmental strategic goals is a 
practice that should improve the usefulness of plans to Congress and 
other decision makers, if consistently applied.[Footnote 29] 

DOD did not concur with our recommendation that the military 
departments develop and include all six key characteristics of a 
comprehensive strategic plan, including, but not limited to, elements 
relating to performance measures. DOD stated that the key 
characteristics and associated elements of a comprehensive strategic 
plan that we reference in this report were developed by GAO after our 
review of several national strategies and not applicable to the 
military departments' corrosion strategic plans.[Footnote 30] DOD 
stated that the military departments' corrosion strategic plans are 
agency-specific strategic plans that should be tailored to 
departmental requirements and not necessarily include the six key 
characteristics. However, these key characteristics and elements were 
used by GAO to assess and make recommendations for improvement to an 
early version of DOD's long-term corrosion strategic plan. 
Specifically, in 2003, we recommended that DOD's long-term corrosion 
strategic plan include clearly defined goals, measurable outcome-
oriented objectives, and performance measures.[Footnote 31] DOD 
concurred with this recommendation and in its 2005 update to the DOD 
corrosion strategic plan, DOD included a revised list of metrics for 
cost, readiness and safety and the associated outcomes that would 
result from the implementation of these metrics. We maintain that the 
key characteristics and associated elements, such as performance 
measures, are applicable to strategies at all levels, including the 
military departments because the elements help monitor progress toward 
preestablished goals and are designed to aid responsible parties in 
further developing and implementing the strategies--and to enhance 
their usefulness in resource and policy decisions and to better assure 
accountability. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics); the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and other 
interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge 
on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-5257 or merrittz@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Zina D. Merritt: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To evaluate the extent to which the Corrosion Executives of the 
military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) coordinated with 
DOD's Corrosion Office to ensure consistency with the goals and 
objectives of DOD's strategic plan and conformity with DOD Instruction 
5000.67, we used a combination of methodologies. To determine the 
degree of coordination between the military departments and the 
Corrosion Office in developing their respective strategic plans, we 
interviewed Corrosion Office and military department officials and 
also reviewed documentation related to coordination. To determine the 
extent of consistency between the strategic plans of the military 
departments[Footnote 32] and the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 
Mitigation Strategic Plan, we analyzed the DOD strategic plan and met 
with Corrosion Office officials to identify the goals and objectives 
with which the military departments' plans should be consistent. We 
then used a scorecard methodology to assess each military strategy for 
consistency with the goals and objectives we identified in the DOD 
Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. We considered a 
military department's plan to be "consistent" when the plan explicitly 
described all parts, "partially consistent" when the plan described 
some aspects, and "not consistent" when the plan did not explicitly 
cite any part of a goal and objective in its strategic plan. To 
determine the extent to which the military departments' strategic 
plans conform to DOD Instruction 5000.67, we analyzed the military 
strategies for references to or citations of the instruction as DOD's 
corrosion prevention and mitigation policy. We also created a set of 
structured questions that asked how the respective military 
department's strategy conformed to the responsibilities in the DOD 
instruction and submitted them to the military departments. We 
reviewed their responses to determine the extent to which the military 
strategies are consistent with DOD Instruction 5000.67 and conducted 
follow-up interviews with officials to obtain clarification. 

To evaluate the extent to which the military departments' corrosion 
prevention strategies included characteristics and elements for a 
comprehensive strategic plan (31 elements grouped into 6 
characteristics), we relied on the work of previous GAO teams and 
engagements that identified those characteristics and elements 
[Footnote 33] and used a scorecard methodology to review the military 
departments' strategic plans. We reviewed the military departments' 
plans and assessed whether each included, partially included, or did 
not include the characteristics and elements identified in our prior 
work. We determined that a military department's strategy "included" 
the characteristics and elements when the plan described all the 
characteristics and elements and "partially included" when the plan 
described some characteristics and elements. When a plan did not 
explicitly cite any of the characteristics and elements, we determined 
that the characteristic and elements that aid in the development and 
implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan were "not included" 
in the military department's strategy. We then met with 
representatives from each of the military departments to discuss our 
assessments and gather further information from them on their 
strategic plans and the characteristics and elements, including 
whether the characteristics and elements were addressed in other 
departmental corrosion documents. Based on these discussions we 
changed our assessments when officials provided clarification to 
justify a change. 

For each objective, we assessed the reliability of the information 
that we analyzed by reviewing existing documentation related to the 
information sources and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials 
about the information that we used. We found the information 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to May 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on the Department of Defense's Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan: 

In 2004, we reported[Footnote 34] that the Department of Defense's 
(DOD's) long-term corrosion strategy generally addressed the 
requirements in the congressional mandate;[Footnote 35] however, it 
fell short of representing a comprehensive plan needed to successfully 
implement the strategy and manage DOD's extensive corrosion problems 
in the future. Specifically, we found that: 

* the strategy did not identify the level of funding and personnel 
resources needed to implement the corrosion reduction plan in the 
near- or long-term; 

* the strategy included some performance measures and milestones, but 
they were not the results-oriented metrics needed to successfully 
monitor the program's progress; and: 

* the strategy strengthened DOD's policy guidance on corrosion 
prevention and mitigation, but improvements could be made. 

We recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics take several actions related to improving the 
long-term corrosion strategy, including identifying funding and 
personnel resources to implement the DOD strategy, and completing a 
study to establish priorities and performance measures to monitor 
progress in reducing corrosion.3[Footnote 36] Table 1 details the 
three recommendations we made in our 2004 report that are relevant to 
this review of the military departments' strategic plans, and the 
respective actions taken by DOD. 

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

Recommendation[A]: To provide better assurances that the Department of 
Defense's long-term corrosion strategy is successfully implemented as 
envisioned by Congress, the Secretary of Defense should instruct the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
in consultation with the DOD Comptroller, to submit to Congress, as 
part of the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, a report identifying 
the long-term funding and personnel resources needed to implement the 
strategy, a status report of corrosion reduction projects funded in 
fiscal year 2005, and the status of a baseline study; 
Actions Taken: Implemented--As part of the FY 2006 budget submission, 
DOD submitted a report identifying the long-term funding and personnel 
resources needed to implement the strategy. A list of candidate 
corrosion reduction projects was included, as was the status of the 
baseline study. In addition, the May 2005 Corrosion Prevention Report 
to Congress also addresses this recommendation. 

Recommendation[A]: To provide better assurances that the Department of 
Defense's long-term corrosion strategy is successfully implemented as 
envisioned by Congress, the Secretary of Defense should instruct the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
in consultation with the DOD Comptroller, to establish a funding 
mechanism to implement the corrosion strategy that would be consistent 
with the strategy's long-term focus; 
Actions Taken: Implemented--In FY 2006, the Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight Office began submitting its annual funding requests through 
the planning, programming and budgeting, and execution process. These 
funding requests are identified in a separate Office of the Secretary 
of Defense Program Element. 

Recommendation[A]: To provide better assurances that the Department of 
Defense's long-term corrosion strategy is successfully implemented as 
envisioned by Congress, the Secretary of Defense should instruct the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
in consultation with the DOD Comptroller, to establish a date to 
complete the corrosion baseline study well before its original 
estimated completion date of 2011 in order that cost-effective 
resource priorities and results-oriented performance measures can be 
established to monitor progress in reducing corrosion and its impacts 
on equipment and infrastructure; 
Actions Taken: Implemented--In April 2007, we reported that DOD 
completed cost-study segments for Army ground vehicles and Navy ships 
in 2006, and planned to complete in 2007 the segments for DOD 
facilities, Army aviation and missiles, and USMC ground vehicles. The 
remaining segments--Navy and Marine Corps aviation and Coast Guard 
aviation and ships--have been completed. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] GAO reported five recommendations, including one that was reported 
to the Secretary of each of the three military departments. We 
included only three recommendations because they are related to 
improving DOD's long-term corrosion strategy. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office of the Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

April 29, 2013: 

Ms. Zina D. Merritt: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Merritt: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-13-379, "Defense Management: Additional Information Needed 
to Improve Military Departments' Corrosion Prevention Strategies" 
dated April 1, 2013 (GAO Code 351643). 

We have reviewed GAO Draft Report, GA0-13-379 and non-concur with both 
recommendations. Written comments addressing each recommendation are 
provided as an enclosure to this letter. Although we non-concur with 
both recommendations, we have found this engagement beneficial and 
will consider the information contained in the GAO draft report when 
developing new or revising existing DoD corrosion prevention 
strategies in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Daniel J. Dunmire: 
Director: 
DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight: 

Enclosure: As Stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated April 1, 2013: 
GAO-13-379 (GAO Code 351643): 

"Defense Management: Additional Information Needed to Improve Military
Departments' Corrosion Prevention Strategies" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendation: 

Recommendation 1: To ensure that future military departments' 
corrosion strategic plans demonstrate consistency and a clear linkage 
to DOD's corrosion goals and objectives, we recommend that the 
Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy 
to direct the Corrosion Executives to include in their next update of 
their strategic plans clear linkage to DOD's overarching goals and 
objectives as described in DOD's Strategic Plan. 

DoD Response: The DoD Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight 
reviewed the military departments' corrosion strategic plans and 
determined their strategies are sufficiently linked to specific 
performance goals and consistent with DoD's overarching goals and 
objectives. The military departments are given the freedom to 
establish goals and objectives that will ensure an effective approach 
to prevent, detect, and treat corrosion for their respective equipment 
and infrastructure. Therefore, we believe that the plans developed by 
the military departments should be tailored to establish an effective 
corrosion control program, but remain consistent with the overarching 
goals and objectives established by DoD. 

Recommendation 2: To ensure that the military departments' corrosion 
strategic plans include key characteristics of a comprehensive 
strategic plan, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Army, Air 
Force, and Navy direct the Corrosion Executives to develop and include 
all six key characteristics of a comprehensive strategic plan, 
including but not limited to associated elements relating to 
performance measures. 

DoD Response: Non-concur. The six key characteristics of a 
comprehensive strategic plan identified by GAO were developed after 
GAO's review of several national strategies (report GAO-04-408T). 
National strategies are complex, cut across multiple levels of 
government and sectors, and are not governed by a single, consistent 
set of requirements. According to the hierarchy of national strategies 
established in Figure 1 of GAO-04-408T, the military departments' 
corrosion strategic plans are agency-specific strategic plans that 
provide details, guidance, and instruction related to corrosion 
prevention and control. Based on the differences between national 
strategies and agency-specific strategic plans as described by GAO, 
the Military Departments' strategic plans should be tailored to 
departmental requirements and not necessarily include the six key 
characteristics. Further, GAO acknowledges in footnote 25 that "the 
plans do not have to provide all the details on every characteristic 
and associated element." The DoD Director, Corrosion Policy and 
Oversight has reviewed the military department strategic plans and 
determined that they are comprehensive, provide appropriate strategic 
guidance for implementing corrosion prevention and control programs 
within their respective departments, and are consistent with 
requirements established in DoD Instruction 5000.67, "Prevention and 
Mitigation of Corrosion on DoD Military Equipment and Infrastructure." 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Carleen Bennett, Assistant 
Director; Elizabeth Curda; Mark Dowling; Dawn Godfrey; Richard 
Powelson; Terry Richardson; Matthew Spiers; Amie Steele; Thomas 
Twambly; and John Van Schaik made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] This estimate, which is based on data from fiscal years 2006 
through 2010, is the latest estimate available on DOD's corrosion 
costs. 

[2] Section 2228 of Title 10 of the United States Code defines 
military equipment as all weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehicles, 
and munitions of DOD and the components of such items. Infrastructure 
is defined as all buildings, structures, airfields, port facilities, 
surface and subterranean utility systems, heating and cooling systems, 
fuel tanks, pavements, and bridges. 

[3] 10 U.S.C. 2228(f)(1). The varied forms of corrosion include 
rusting, pitting, galvanic reaction, calcium or other mineral buildup, 
degradation due to ultraviolet light exposure, and mold, mildew, or 
other organic decay. 

[4] Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 1067 (2002). 

[5] The Navy's Corrosion Executive also is responsible for the Marine 
Corps' corrosion issues. 

[6] Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 903 (2008). 

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

[8] For the purposes of this report, we defined "consistency" to mean 
that the military strategy links to the goals and objectives in the 
DOD strategic plan. 

[9] These overarching strategies are reflected in the DOD Corrosion 
Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. For example, one of the 
strategies is to attack corrosion early in the acquisition or 
construction cycle, such as during design, manufacture, and assembly. 
Throughout the remainder of this document we refer to these strategies 
as goals and objectives. 

[10] Department of Defense, Department of Defense Instruction 5000.67: 
Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and 
Infrastructure (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2010). 

[11] Navy officials included their strategic plan as an annex to the 
department's annual corrosion report because of DOD's Better Buying 
Power Initiative, an initiative which includes the streamlining of 
documentation and guidance where possible. To treat all departments 
consistently, we decided to assess only the portion of the document 
specifically identified as the Navy's Strategic Plan. 

[12] Corrosion Office officials stated that it would be reasonable to 
expect the military departments to be consistent with those goals and 
objectives. One of DOD's goals and objectives was specific to the 
Corrosion Office, so we did not assess the military departments for 
consistency with that goal. 

[13] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics 
in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 
2004). 

[14] Pub. L. 107-314, § 1067. 

[15] GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Implementation of DOD's Long-Term Corrosion Strategy, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-640] (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 
2004). 

[16] According to Corrosion Office officials, the strategies roughly 
link to the Working-level Integrated Product Teams. There are seven 
Working-level Integrated Product Teams: Corrosion Policy, Processes, 
Procedures and Oversight; Science and Technology; Outreach and 
Communications; Facilities; Training and Certification; 
Specifications, Standards and Qualification Process; and Metrics, 
Impact and Sustainment. 

[17] DOD previously issued DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and 
Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, 
in January 2008. 

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

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

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

[21] For this report, we define "coordination" as the military 
departments submitting the respective military strategy to Corrosion 
Office officials for their review. 

[22] GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can 
Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 26, 1999). 

[23] The Navy's Corrosion Executive stated that the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense has a requirement to determine specifications and 
standards, but the Navy does not have such a requirement. However, all 
military departments acknowledged that their departments work on 
developing or influencing corrosion specifications and standards. 

[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T]. 

[25] GAO uses these characteristics and elements to assess government 
strategic plans, but we also acknowledge that the plans do not have to 
provide all the details on every characteristic and associated element. 

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

[27] GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and 
Relationships, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: May 2011). Performance measures may address outputs 
or outcomes. 

[28] To treat all military departments consistently, we decided to 
assess only what the Navy identified specifically as its strategic 
plan. 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69]. 

[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T]. 

[31] GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs 
and Increase Readiness, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-753] (Washington D.C.: July 7, 
2003). 

[32] [1] Navy officials included their strategic plan as an annex to 
the department's annual corrosion report because of DOD's Better 
Buying Power Initiative, an initiative which includes the streamlining 
of documentation and guidance where possible. To treat all military 
departments consistently, we made the decision to assess only the 
portions of documents that were identified as strategic plans; 
therefore, for the Navy we assessed a report section identified as the 
Navy's Strategic Plan, and did not assess the Navy's entire annual 
corrosion report. 

[33] [2] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected 
Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004), and Managing for Results: Critical Issues for 
Improving Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-180] (Washington D.C.: Sept. 
16, 1997). 

[34] [1] GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Implementation of DOD's Long-Term Corrosion Strategy, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-640] (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 
2004). 

[35] [2] Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003, Pub. L. 107-314, § 1067 (Dec. 2, 2002). 

[36] [3] We also made recommendations to the Secretaries of the 
military departments and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
but these recommendations were not related to strategic planning. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

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, [hyperlink, 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: 

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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]