Defense Management
Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings Gao ID: GAO-06-709 June 14, 2006The military services store prepositioned stocks of equipment and material on ships and land in locations around the world to enable the rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. GAO's prior work has shown that the readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded by corrosion and that the Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars annually to address corrosion. GAO was asked to review the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets. GAO's specific objectives were to assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the Marine Corps to reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and (2) the availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and the Marine Corps to support corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for prepositioned assets.
The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use of humidity-controlled storage facilities on ships and in some land-based locations, but a substantial portion of Army land-based prepositioned assets are stored outdoors and are left relatively unprotected from elements that contribute to corrosion. When equipment was drawn for military operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2003, it was reported in good operating condition and not degraded by corrosion. Most of this equipment had been stored in humidity-controlled facilities. However, whereas all Marine Corps prepositioned assets are stored in humidity-controlled facilities, the Army currently stores a significant amount of its land-based prepositioned assets outdoors. Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because outdoor storage makes equipment more susceptible to corrosion and increases maintenance requirements and costs. One Army study showed that sheltering equipment in a humidity-controlled facility had a return on investment, at minimum, of $8 for every $1 invested. In South Korea, the Army has recently completed an intensive effort to repair prepositioned assets and correct some long-standing problems, but almost one-third of the assets continue to be stored outside. Similarly, as the Army reconstitutes its prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia, thousands of Army equipment items in Kuwait are stored outdoors in harsh environmental conditions. Army officials cited competing funding priorities and other factors as reasons for not providing indoor storage for all land-based prepositioned assets. However, temporary shelters may be a feasible option to address immediate storage needs. The Army has used temporary shelters and humidity-controlled storage for some prepositioned assets. Although the Army requires corrosion-related data collection for equipment items and Marine Corps officials believe them to be beneficial, data that could help reduce corrosion of prepositioned assets are not available. They are not available because the services consider this information to be a low priority and do not systematically collect it. Without these data, the services are not in a position to identify causes of corrosion, support efforts to more effectively reduce corrosion, and achieve long-term cost savings. Army and Marine Corps documents include information on the maintenance condition, actions, and costs for prepositioned equipment, but provide little data on corrosion. While cost data are limited, the services have estimated that about 25 percent of overall equipment maintenance costs are corrosion related and perhaps as much as one-third of these costs could be reduced through more effective corrosion prevention and mitigation. An Army review of maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned stock in South Korea found that $8.7 million (31 percent) of the estimated $28 million spent to restore this equipment was used to address corrosion. The Army has had previous success using corrosion data on non-prepositioned equipment programs to support corrosion prevention and mitigation.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-709, Defense Management: Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-709
entitled 'Defense Management: Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion
of Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings' which was
released on June 14, 2006.
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.
GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Report to Congressional Committees:
June 2006:
Defense Management:
Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of Prepositioned Military
Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings:
GAO-06-709:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-709, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The military services store prepositioned stocks of equipment and
material on ships and land in locations around the world to enable the
rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. GAO‘s prior work has shown that
the readiness and safety of military equipment can be severely degraded
by corrosion and that the Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions
of dollars annually to address corrosion. GAO was asked to review the
impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets. GAO‘s specific objectives
were to assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the Marine Corps
to reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and (2) the
availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and the Marine Corps
to support corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for
prepositioned assets.
What GAO Found:
The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the impact
of corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use of
humidity-controlled storage facilities on ships and in some land-based
locations, but a substantial portion of Army land-based prepositioned
assets are stored outdoors and are left relatively unprotected from
elements that contribute to corrosion. When equipment was drawn for
military operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom during 2003, it was
reported in good operating condition and not degraded by corrosion.
Most of this equipment had been stored in humidity-controlled
facilities. However, whereas all Marine Corps prepositioned assets are
stored in humidity-controlled facilities, the Army currently stores a
significant amount of its land-based prepositioned assets outdoors.
Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing prepositioned
assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because outdoor storage
makes equipment more susceptible to corrosion and increases maintenance
requirements and costs. One Army study showed that sheltering equipment
in a humidity-controlled facility had a return on investment, at
minimum, of $8 for every $1 invested. In South Korea, the Army has
recently completed an intensive effort to repair prepositioned assets
and correct some long-standing problems, but almost one-third of the
assets continue to be stored outside. Similarly, as the Army
reconstitutes its prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia, thousands
of Army equipment items in Kuwait are stored outdoors in harsh
environmental conditions. Army officials cited competing funding
priorities and other factors as reasons for not providing indoor
storage for all land-based prepositioned assets. However, temporary
shelters may be a feasible option to address immediate storage needs.
The Army has used temporary shelters and humidity-controlled storage
for some prepositioned assets.
Although the Army requires corrosion-related data collection for
equipment items and Marine Corps officials believe them to be
beneficial, data that could help reduce corrosion of prepositioned
assets are not available. They are not available because the services
consider this information to be a low priority and do not
systematically collect it. Without these data, the services are not in
a position to identify causes of corrosion, support efforts to more
effectively reduce corrosion, and achieve long-term cost savings. Army
and Marine Corps documents include information on the maintenance
condition, actions, and costs for prepositioned equipment, but provide
little data on corrosion. While cost data are limited, the services
have estimated that about 25 percent of overall equipment maintenance
costs are corrosion related and perhaps as much as one-third of these
costs could be reduced through more effective corrosion prevention and
mitigation. An Army review of maintenance records for about 2,000
pieces of prepositioned stock in South Korea found that $8.7 million
(31 percent) of the estimated $28 million spent to restore this
equipment was used to address corrosion. The Army has had previous
success using corrosion data on non-prepositioned equipment programs to
support corrosion prevention and mitigation.
What GAO Recommends:
To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, GAO is
recommending that the Army examine the feasibility of using temporary
shelters to store land-based prepositioned assets currently stored
outdoors and that the Army and Marine Corps enhance their efforts to
collect corrosion-related data on prepositioned assets. DOD concurred
with GAO‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-709].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William Solis at (202)
512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Some Measures to Reduce Impact of
Corrosion on Prepositioned Assets, but the Army Could Increase Its Use
of Storage Facilities:
Lack of Corrosion Data Impairs Army and Marine Corps Ability to Support
Prevention and Mitigation Efforts and Achieve Long-term Cost Savings:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: Military Services' Prepositioning Programs:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Description of Prepositioning Programs:
Figure:
Figure 1: Locations of Army (USAR), Marine Corps (USMC), Navy (USN),
and Air Force (USAF) Prepositioned Stocks:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 14, 2006:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Chairman:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
The Honorable David R. Obey:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Army and the Marine Corps store prepositioned stocks of equipment
and material on ships and land in locations around the world to enable
the rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. These prepositioned stocks
are a strategic asset for projecting military power and have been used
extensively to support military operations in Southwest Asia. The Army
stores sets of brigade equipment and supporting supplies at land sites
in several countries as well as aboard prepositioning ships in the
Pacific and Indian Oceans. Each of the Army's prepositioned brigade
sets is designed to support 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The Marine Corps
stores equipment and supplies for its forces aboard squadrons of
maritime prepositioning ships around the world as well as in Norway.
Each of the Marine Corps' three prepositioning squadrons is designed to
support 13,000 Marines for up to 30 days. We have previously raised
concerns about the oversight and direction of military prepositioning
programs.[Footnote 1] For example, we have reported that the services
lacked sufficient information on the inventory level and maintenance
condition of some prepositioned stocks. In addition, future plans for
prepositioned assets are likely to be affected by the availability of
funding, spare part and equipment stocks shortages, and the effects of
transformation.[Footnote 2]
Because prepositioned assets are critical to the readiness of combat
forces, the military services must keep these items in good operating
condition. Among the challenges the services face in keeping their
equipment and supplies in good operating condition is corrosion caused
by exposure to the environment.[Footnote 3] Corrosion, if left
unchecked, can degrade the readiness and safety of equipment and has
been estimated to cost the Department of Defense (DOD) billions of
dollars annually. The military services have established programs aimed
at minimizing the impact of corrosion on their assets, and DOD has
developed a long-term corrosion prevention and mitigation strategy.
This report responds to a request in the Conference Report accompanying
the fiscal year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill that we review the
impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets.[Footnote 4] Our specific
objectives were to assess (1) the measures taken by the Army and the
Marine Corps to reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets
and (2) the availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and the
Marine Corps to support corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for
prepositioned assets.
Our review focused on prepositioned stocks managed by the Army and
Marine Corps because these two services have the largest amounts of
prepositioned equipment and provided most of the equipment used in
current operations in Southwest Asia. To conduct our work, we reviewed
the services' policies, procedures, and practices for managing and
maintaining prepositioned assets; analyzed various reports on these
assets, including inspection and maintenance reports; visited selected
maintenance facilities and prepositioning sites; and discussed
corrosion issues with officials responsible for managing and
maintaining prepositioned assets and for managing corrosion prevention
and mitigation programs. We determined that the data used were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from May
2005 through February 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. The scope and methodology section
contains more detailed information on the work we performed.
Results in Brief:
The Army and the Marine Corps have taken some measures for reducing the
impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets, primarily through the use
of humidity-controlled storage facilities on ships and in some land-
based locations, but a substantial portion of Army land-based
prepositioned assets are stored outdoors and, therefore, are left
relatively unprotected from moisture, sand, and other elements that
contribute to corrosion. When prepositioned equipment was drawn by Army
and Marine units for military operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom
during 2003, it was reported to be in good operating condition and was
not degraded by corrosion. Most of this equipment had been stored in
humidity-controlled facilities. However, the Army is currently storing
a significant amount of its land-based prepositioned assets outdoors.
In contrast, all Marine Corps prepositioned assets are stored in
humidity-controlled facilities both on ships and in caves in Norway.
Under Army policy, the preferred method for storing prepositioned
assets is in humidity-controlled facilities because outdoor storage
makes equipment more susceptible to corrosion that degrades its
condition and increases maintenance requirements and costs. One Army
study showed that sheltering equipment in a humidity-controlled
facility had a return on investment, at minimum, of $8 for every $1
invested. In South Korea, the Army has recently completed an intensive
effort to repair prepositioned assets and correct some long-standing
problems, but almost one-third of prepositioned assets, including
brigade-set and sustainment stocks, continue to be stored outside
rather than in shelters. Similarly, as the Army reconstitutes its
prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia, thousands of Army
prepositioned equipment items in Kuwait are stored outdoors in harsh
environmental conditions, requiring more frequent maintenance than
would be the case if shelters were used. The Army's prepositioned
afloat maintenance facility in South Carolina also lacks humidity-
controlled storage for equipment awaiting upload to ships, and
equipment is stored outside anywhere from 1 to 3 months, on average.
Army officials cited a number of factors, primarily competing funding
priorities, as reasons for not providing indoor storage for all land-
based prepositioned assets. However, temporary shelters may be a
feasible option to address immediate storage needs. The Army has used
temporary shelters and humidity-controlled storage for some
prepositioned assets.
Although Army regulations require corrosion-related data to be
collected for equipment items and Marine Corps officials believe them
to be beneficial, corrosion-related data that could enhance efforts to
prevent and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets are not
available. They are not available because the Army and Marine Corps
consider this information to be a low priority and therefore do not
systematically collect it. Without these data, the services are not in
a position to identify the underlying causes of corrosion, support
efforts to more effectively prevent and mitigate corrosion, and achieve
long-term cost savings. Army and Marine Corps documents we reviewed
include information on the maintenance condition, repair actions, and
costs for prepositioned equipment, but provide little data regarding
the extent and nature of corrosion found during the maintenance
process. Army and Marine Corps officials said corrosion is routinely
treated as part of the overall maintenance process and, given its low
priority, corrosion-related data are not tracked separately. Although
the Army and Marine Corps are not collecting data about the current
costs to prevent and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets, the
services have estimated that about 25 percent of overall maintenance
costs are corrosion related and perhaps as much as one-third of these
costs could be reduced through more effective corrosion prevention and
mitigation. At our request, the Army conducted a limited review of
maintenance records for about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned stock in
South Korea and found that about $8.7 million (31 percent) of the
estimated $28 million spent to restore this equipment to serviceable
condition was used to address corrosion-related problems. Information
that would be obtained through the collection of corrosion data could
support the Army's and Marine Corps' efforts to more effectively
prevent and mitigate corrosion and achieve long-term cost savings. The
Army has had previous success using corrosion data on non-
prepositioning equipment programs to support corrosion prevention and
mitigation actions. Two examples where such actions resulted in cost
savings are the Army National Guard's humidity-controlled shelter
program and the Army's Hellfire missile program.
To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, we are
recommending that the Army examine the feasibility of using temporary
shelters to store land-based prepositioned assets currently stored
outdoors and that the Army and Marine Corps enhance their efforts to
collect corrosion-related data on prepositioned assets. In commenting
on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendations.
DOD's response is reprinted in appendix II.
Background:
Prepositioned equipment and supplies are strategic assets, along with
sealift and airlift, for projecting military power. These assets
include combat equipment, spare parts, and sustainment supplies that
are stored on ships and on land in locations around the world to enable
the rapid fielding of combat-ready forces. (App. I provides an overview
of the military services' prepositioned assets and their locations.)
DOD has made significant investments in its military prepositioning
programs, totaling several billion dollars in annual acquisition costs.
In addition, the services have collectively used an average of over $1
billion each year to operate and maintain these assets. For example, in
fiscal year 2005, the Army spent $386.1 million for storage and
maintenance of prepositioned assets, including $76.5 million for assets
in South Korea and $38.3 million for assets in Southwest Asia.
Prepositioned assets have been used extensively to support operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marine Corps used equipment from two of
its three prepositioned squadrons to support these operations. The Army
used nearly all of its prepositioned ship stocks and land-based stocks
in Kuwait and Qatar, in addition to drawing some equipment from Europe.
Military equipment and infrastructure are often located in corrosive
environments that increase the deterioration of assets and shorten
their useful life. The extensive and long-term deployments of U.S.
troops in Southwest Asia are likely to magnify the effects of corrosion
on military equipment, including prepositioned assets, because of the
region's harsh operating environment. Higher rates of corrosion result
in increased repairs and replacements, drive up costs, and take
critical systems out of action, reducing mission readiness. Corrosion
can also reduce the safety of equipment items. Although reliable cost
data are not available, estimates of corrosion costs DOD-wide have
ranged from $10 billion to $20 billion annually. We have found in our
prior work that DOD and the military services did not have an effective
management approach to mitigate and prevent corrosion.[Footnote 5] We
recommended that DOD develop a departmentwide strategic plan with
clearly defined goals, measurable outcome-oriented objectives, and
performance measures. DOD concurred and in December 2003 issued its
corrosion strategy.[Footnote 6]
According to DOD's corrosion strategy, knowing the costs of corrosion
is essential to adequately implementing the strategy, and having
corrosion data helps the department learn what works so it can be more
effective in reducing corrosion. In addition, the Defense Science Board
in 2004 stated that "accurate and objective corrosion data collection
and new incentives to reward life-cycle cost reduction efforts must be
implemented" as part of an effective corrosion control program and that
such data are critical "not only to understand the depth of the
problem, but to enable a quantitative corrosion mitigation strategy,
which is founded on fact."[Footnote 7]
Army and Marine Corps Have Taken Some Measures to Reduce Impact of
Corrosion on Prepositioned Assets, but the Army Could Increase Its Use
of Storage Facilities:
The Army and Marine Corps have taken some measures to reduce the impact
of corrosion on prepositioned assets, but the Army could increase its
use of storage facilities for land-based assets. Prepositioned
equipment drawn by Army and Marine Corps units for military operations
in Iraq during 2003 had mostly been stored in humidity-controlled
facilities and was reported to be in good operating condition and was
not degraded by corrosion. The primary measure taken to reduce
corrosion and achieve this good operating condition was the use of
humidity-controlled storage facilities. However, we identified several
locations where the Army is currently storing a substantial portion of
its prepositioned equipment outdoors. Temporary shelters may be a
feasible option to address immediate storage needs.
Prepositioned Equipment Deployed for Military Operations Was Reported
to Be in Good Operating Condition:
When prepositioned equipment was drawn by Army and Marine Corps units
in military operations in Iraq during 2003, it was reported to be in
good working condition and was not degraded by corrosion. Army
officials from the 3rd Infantry Division have stated that with the
exception of rubber seals on some vehicles, prepositioned equipment
entering Southwest Asia was in good shape and had minimal, if any,
corrosion. These officials said they did not experience any corrosion
that affected their ability to perform operations. Similarly, officials
with the 1st and 2nd Marine Expeditionary Forces who used or observed
the use of prepositioned equipment in Southwest Asia found it was in a
high state of readiness and could not recall any instance where
corrosion affected their ability to perform operations. Furthermore,
officials with the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force said the equipment on
the prepositioning ship USNS Lummus that was used in a 2004 training
exercise in South Korea was generally in the same good operating
condition it was when first uploaded about 2 years previously. These
officials stated that subsequent maintenance in August 2005 confirmed
that the equipment continued to be in good operating condition based on
a detailed examination of about 200 pieces of this equipment. They told
us that with the exception of minor hydraulic leaks and o-ring
deterioration, the equipment was generally free of corrosion problems.
Humidity-Controlled Facilities Have Helped Reduce Corrosion:
The primary measure to reduce corrosion of Army and Marine Corps
prepositioned assets has been the use of humidity-controlled storage
facilities. Most of the prepositioned equipment drawn for military
operations in Iraq during 2003 had been stored, either afloat or on
land, in such facilities. Under Army policy, the preferred method for
storing prepositioned assets is in humidity-controlled facilities
because such storage is considered highly effective in preserving
equipment. Maintaining low humidity levels reduces corrosion because
moisture is a primary cause of corrosion. Similarly, Marine Corps
policies indicate that equipment should be sheltered in climate-
controlled facilities to the greatest extent possible. Army and Marine
Corps officials told us that the use of humidity-controlled facilities
is effective at minimizing equipment corrosion and maintaining high
readiness levels.[Footnote 8] Army equipment on prepositioning ships is
stored below deck in humidity-controlled cargo space. In addition, the
Army stores some of its land-based prepositioned equipment in humidity-
controlled warehouses. Marine Corps prepositioned assets are stored in
humidity-controlled facilities either on ships or in caves in Norway.
Humidity levels, particularly on ships, are required under Army and
Marine Corps guidelines to stay within a specific range on a continuous
basis and are closely monitored.
In addition to humidity-controlled storage, the Army and Marine Corps
have taken other measures intended to help reduce the impact of
corrosion on prepositioned assets. Army and Marine Corps policies
require that repaired equipment be restored to good condition before
being placed in prepositioned status. Specifically, Army maintenance
regulations require prepositioned equipment to be maintained at "10/20"
standards,[Footnote 9] the highest standard the Army has for equipment
maintenance. Army maintenance regulations also provide for the use of
lubricants and preservatives, as well as regular inspections. Marine
Corps policy indicates that all equipment generally will be in "Code A"
condition at the time it is placed in storage.[Footnote 10] Code A
means the equipment is serviceable without any limitation or
restriction. Marine Corps officials told us equipment meeting this
standard would have little to no corrosion. Marine Corps maintenance
guidance for prepositioned equipment consists of a variety of corrosion
prevention and mitigation measures, including visual inspections for
leaks, corrosion removal and recoating, and preservation.[Footnote 11]
For equipment stored on the prepositioned ships, inspections are
conducted on a periodic basis. Both Army and Marine Corps officials
said corrosion is routinely treated as part of the maintenance process
for restoring equipment to meet standards.[Footnote 12]
Army Is Storing a Sizeable Portion of Its Land-Based Prepositioned
Assets Outdoors:
We identified several locations where the Army is storing a significant
amount of land-based prepositioned assets outdoors without adequate
sheltering. Specifically, we found equipment being stored outdoors at
Camp Carroll, South Korea; Camp Arifjan, Kuwait; and Goose Creek, South
Carolina. At these locations, assets are left relatively unprotected
from moisture, sand, and other elements that contribute to corrosion.
Army officials noted that unprotected equipment corrodes faster and
will more quickly fall below required maintenance condition standards.
At Camp Carroll in South Korea, about 30 percent of the Army's Heavy
Brigade Combat Team equipment--mostly sustainment stock--is stored
outdoors in an often damp and humid region. The remaining equipment is
stored in humidity-controlled facilities. Army officials told us that
the equipment had been poorly maintained and, as a result, experienced
many significant defects and readiness shortfalls, with corrosion being
one of the primary problems.[Footnote 13] These officials said some of
the equipment corroded faster and more severely because of being stored
outside and, as a result, the Army incurred additional maintenance
costs. Army officials in South Korea noted that it costs more to
maintain equipment that is stored outside in part because the equipment
needs to be inspected three times more often than equipment in humidity-
controlled storage. Large amounts of Army prepositioned equipment are
also stored outside in Kuwait where, according to DOD and Army
officials, the environment is highly corrosive because of the humid
climate, sand with high salinity levels, and strong winds. As of April
2006, the Army was storing outside nearly all of its prepositioned
assets (numbering about 11,000 items) in Southwest Asia.[Footnote 14]
At the Army's prepositioning afloat facility in Goose Creek, South
Carolina, equipment is stored outside during the time it is not
undergoing maintenance because of a lack of storage facilities. The
amount of time equipment is stored outside ranges, on average, from 1
month to more than 3 months. In some cases, equipment is stored outside
well over 3 months. For example, 44 M1A1 tanks and 10 fuel tankers sat
outdoors for more than a year after undergoing maintenance and
experienced a total of $1.2 million in corrosion- related damage. Army
officials said that prolonged periods of outdoor storage as happened in
this case rarely occur, but that some period of outdoor storage is
expected for equipment waiting upload.
Army officials acknowledged having an immediate need for additional
sheltering, preferably with humidity control capability, for
prepositioned equipment located in South Korea, Kuwait, and South
Carolina. However, under current construction plans, additional storage
facilities will not be available at all three sites until 2012 at the
earliest. In South Korea and Kuwait, Army officials said that even with
the additional planned storage facilities, substantial amounts of
equipment will still be stored outdoors. For example, officials
estimated about 20 percent of equipment in Kuwait will remain outside.
Officials cited competing funding priorities as the primary reason for
not providing indoor storage for all land-based prepositioned assets.
Army officials also cited uncertainties regarding the number and type
of equipment and length of time it is stored, which make it difficult
to accurately define storage requirements and justify funding for
construction of additional storage facilities. In South Korea, Army
officials told us the lack of available land limits their ability to
construct new, or expand existing, facilities. These officials also
said that estimating storage needs is difficult because of
uncertainties regarding the consolidation and reconfiguration of U.S.
Forces Korea facilities related to future force restructuring. Army
prepositioning afloat officials said that the Goose Creek facility
primarily is a maintenance facility and is not meant for the storage of
equipment, which makes it difficult to justify the building of new
storage space.
Although building additional storage will require Army investment, the
use of humidity-controlled storage in general has been shown to provide
a substantial return on investment. According to a study by the Army
Cost and Economic Analysis Center, sheltering Army National Guard
equipment in a humidity-controlled facility had a potential return on
investment of a minimum of $8 for every $1 invested. The Army National
Guard also estimates that it will have achieved a total of over $1.2
billion in cost savings by fiscal year 2010. Most of the projected
savings is based on having to perform less maintenance on equipment
that is being preserved better in humidity-controlled facilities. The
humidity-controlled sheltering program includes combat vehicles,
trailers, radar systems, and other equipment located at Guard
facilities in 45 states and U.S. territories. According to Army storage
and maintenance guidelines, storage of equipment in facilities without
humidity control--particularly in open storage without protection--not
only invites greater and more rapid deterioration because of corrosion
but requires increased surveillance, inspections, and maintenance. For
example, whereas combat vehicles in humidity-controlled facilities need
to be exercised and road tested every 30 months, vehicles stored
without humidity control require exercising every 12 months. One of the
benefits of humidity control is avoiding or at least minimizing these
increased maintenance requirements.
Temporary Shelters May Be a Feasible Option:
Given the competing funding priorities and other constraints cited by
Army officials in providing additional storage facilities for
prepositioned equipment, temporary shelters may be a feasible option to
address immediate storage needs. Temporary shelters are available in a
range of sizes, materials, and features, including humidity control.
For example, "K-SPAN" temporary shelters are steel structures
constructed on-site and set over a concrete foundation. These shelters
may be dismantled, packaged, and relocated. Army officials told us that
temporary shelters are used primarily in situations where immediate
storage is required but may be durable enough to last for several
years. Furthermore, they can be acquired faster than permanent
facilities, which may take several years to plan, fund, and build. The
military services have made prior use of temporary shelters in several
locations, for both prepositioned and non-prepositioned equipment. For
example, the Marine Corps uses temporary humidity-controlled facilities
in Florida to store some of its prepositioned assets awaiting
maintenance and upload to ships. In addition, the Army has stored
prepositioned equipment in temporary shelters located in Livorno,
Italy, and Camp Carroll, South Korea. The Marine Corps has also used
temporary shelters to store non-prepositioned equipment in Hawaii.
Lack of Corrosion Data Impairs Army and Marine Corps Ability to Support
Prevention and Mitigation Efforts and Achieve Long-term Cost Savings:
The lack of available corrosion data impairs the ability of the Army
and Marine Corps to achieve long-term costs savings through corrosion
prevention and mitigation efforts. The Army and Marine Corps consider
collection of corrosion data on prepositioned assets to be a low
priority and, consequently, do not systematically collect them. These
data could be used to support additional prevention and mitigation
efforts that achieve long-term cost savings, similar to the Army's
previous success using corrosion data regarding non-prepositioning
programs.
Army and Marine Corps Are Not Collecting Corrosion Data on
Prepositioned Assets:
Corrosion-related data that could enhance efforts to prevent and
mitigate corrosion of prepositioned assets is unavailable because the
Army and Marine Corps consider collection of this information to be a
low priority and, consequently, do not systematically collect it. Army
regulations require units to collect corrosion-related data as part of
their equipment maintenance and storage programs, while the Marine
Corps generally lacks requirements for collection of corrosion-related
data.[Footnote 15] For example, the Army's Corrosion Prevention and
Control Program regulation includes a requirement for a corrosion-
related survey of all divisions and separate combat brigades to be
conducted at least every 4 years.[Footnote 16] In addition, Army policy
on reporting equipment quality deficiencies includes a requirement to
report problems that are corrosion related.[Footnote 17] The Marine
Corps, on the other hand, does not require the collection of corrosion
information for all equipment, but believes it to be beneficial. The
mission of the Marine Corps' Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
is to reduce maintenance requirements and costs associated with
corrosion, and the program seeks to identify and assess current and
projected corrosion problems for all tactical ground and ground support
equipment. Marine Corps officials said that the desire for the
collection of corrosion information applies to all Marine Corps
activities, including prepositioning programs, but acknowledge that
data are not collected on prepositioned assets because they have a low
priority. Corrosion data could be used to help identify underlying
causes of maintenance problems and obtain a better understanding of the
costs of corrosion and the extent it affects readiness.
Despite Army corrosion data collection requirements and the
establishment of corrosion prevention and control programs in the Army
and Marine Corps, we found that information about corrosion of
prepositioned assets is generally lacking in both services. We reviewed
a wide range of reports and other documentation on Army and Marine
Corps prepositioned equipment and found these to be almost devoid of
corrosion-related data. For example, we examined information on the
maintenance condition and repair actions for prepositioned equipment
from the Army Maintenance Management System, but this system did not
contain information regarding the extent and nature of equipment
corrosion. Likewise, the cost data on prepositioned equipment contained
in the Marine Corps' Standard Accounting, Budgeting and Reporting
System, which contains total maintenance and repair costs for all
prepositioned equipment, also did not include information specifically
on corrosion costs. We also asked the Army and Marine Corps for
information regarding the impact of corrosion on maintenance costs,
equipment deficiencies, inventory levels, and readiness rates. In
almost every instance, this corrosion information was not available. As
we have previously reported, DOD and the military services generally
have a limited amount of corrosion data related to cost estimates,
readiness, and safety data.[Footnote 18]
According to Army and Marine Corps officials, corrosion information on
prepositioned assets is unavailable primarily because it has low
priority. Although Army guidance for documenting equipment maintenance
includes detailed instructions for reporting corrosion issues, Army
officials said most of those responsible for documenting the
maintenance action do not want to take the extra time to include
corrosion information because they see it as having minimal value and
have no incentive to collect it. Similarly, Marine Corps officials
stated that there is minimal incentive to capture and report corrosion
costs for prepositioned equipment because maintenance costs are
typically managed at more general levels, such as the costs to repair
or replace a piece of equipment. Officials from both the Army and the
Marine Corps said that corrosion is routinely treated as part of the
overall maintenance process, and corrosion-related data are not tracked
separately. For example, Army officials at Camp Carroll, South Korea,
told us that corrosion observed on the engine blocks in 5-ton trucks
would be repaired during maintenance performed on the entire engine and
would not be noted in the maintenance logs. Instead, documentation of
the maintenance actions would include a description of the equipment or
component and why it was not functional--such as being broken or
cracked--but would not include the reason for the repair, such as
corrosion. According to Marine Corps officials, corrosion information
has value but not enough to be included with more critical information,
such as the amount of equipment in the inventory and amount in
serviceable condition.
Although the Army and Marine Corps are not collecting data about the
current costs to prevent and mitigate corrosion of prepositioned
assets, the military services have estimated that at least 25 percent
of overall maintenance costs are corrosion related and that as much as
one-third of these costs could be reduced through more effective
corrosion prevention and mitigation. Army and Marine Corps officials
told us that this estimate applies to both prepositioned and non-
prepositioned assets because corrosion affects both types of equipment
in similar ways. Because of the lack of available cost data, the Army,
at our request, conducted a limited review of maintenance records for
about 2,000 pieces of prepositioned stock in South Korea. The Army
determined that about $8.7 million (31 percent) of the estimated $28
million spent to restore this equipment to serviceable condition was
used to address corrosion-related problems. As another indication of
corrosion costs, Marine Corps officials estimated that corrosion costs
make up at least 50 percent of the $110,000 needed, on average, to
repair motorized lighterage[Footnote 19] prepositioned equipment.
Corrosion Data Could Be Used to Support Additional Prevention and
Mitigation Efforts That Achieve Long-term Cost Savings:
The additional information that would be obtained through the
collection of corrosion data could support the Army's and Marine Corps'
efforts to more effectively prevent and mitigate corrosion and achieve
long-term cost savings, which could be significant given the resources
the military services devote each year to addressing corrosion-related
problems. Corrosion prevention measures may reduce the amount of
maintenance needed, thereby extending the availability of equipment
items over their life cycle. The Army has had previous success using
corrosion data regarding non-prepositioning programs to support
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts that achieved long-term
cost savings. For example, the Army National Guard began the initial
phase of a humidity-controlled storage program for its vehicles and
equipment in 1994. Guard officials told us that they collected and
analyzed an extensive amount of information on corrosion and its cost
impacts on selected pieces of equipment and estimated that a
significant amount of corrosion-related costs could be avoided by using
humidity-controlled storage facilities. Program officials currently
estimate that the sheltering and preservation effort will save a total
of about $1.2 billion through fiscal year 2010, which reflects a 9 to 1
return on investment. Army officials cited similar results after
collecting corrosion data on Hellfire missile launchers. The types and
areas of the launchers that were most prone to corrosion--such as
missile safety/arming switches--were identified and documented. Based
on this research, maintenance technicians knew better to look for
corrosion and how to control it before it worsened. The Army Missile
Command's tactical missile program executive office attributed a large
portion of its $3.2 billion overall long-term life cycle savings to the
Hellfire corrosion prevention measures. Collection of corrosion data
for prepositioned equipment could better enable the Army and Marine
Corps to support similar corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts in
their prepositioning programs.
Conclusions:
Effectively addressing corrosion on prepositioned stocks of equipment
can enable the services to achieve significant cost savings and
increase readiness and safety for rapidly fielding combat-ready forces
around the world. Although the Army and Marine Corps have taken
measures to reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets,
there are immediate opportunities for taking additional action.
Sheltering assets--especially sheltering in humidity-controlled
facilities--has been shown to be a key anticorrosion practice, yet
large amounts of Army land-based prepositioned assets are stored
outdoors without adequate sheltering. This practice is wasteful given
the large investment in acquiring the equipment and the annual costs of
maintaining it. Furthermore, while the Army and Marine Corps do not
collect corrosion data for prepositioned equipment, the collection of
such data could provide additional information to identify the
underlying causes of maintenance problems and develop solutions to
address these problems. Without such data, the services may lack the
incentive to support efforts to more effectively prevent and mitigate
corrosion and achieve long-term cost savings. Until the Army and Marine
Corps take additional actions to prevent corrosion, such as
implementing use of temporary shelters to the greatest extent feasible
and collecting corrosion-related data, prepositioned equipment stored
outdoors will continue to corrode at an accelerated pace and the
services will continue to incur unnecessary costs for maintaining
equipment and repairing corrosion damage.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To reduce the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets and support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions:
* Direct the Secretary of the Army to examine the feasibility of using
temporary shelters, including humidity-controlled facilities, to store
land-based prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors, and if such
use is determined to be feasible, to take appropriate actions to
implement the use of shelters to the maximum extent possible.
* Direct the Secretary of the Army to collect corrosion-related data,
as required in existing Army regulations, and use these data to support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts.
* Direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to require the collection
of corrosion-related data and use these data to support additional
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts.
We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to
specify the department's planned actions, milestones, and resources for
completing an Army feasibility study on the use of temporary shelters
to store land-based prepositioned assets and for collecting and using
Army and Marine Corps corrosion-related data to support additional
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendations that the Army consider the feasibility of using
temporary shelters, including humidity-controlled facilities, to store
land-based prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors and that the
Army and Marine Corps collect and use corrosion-related data to support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. However, DOD
did not provide specific information on planned actions, milestones,
and resources for implementing the recommendations. With respect to the
Marine Corps, DOD stated that collection of adequate data is not a
matter of being a low priority but a funding issue. As noted in our
report, we were told by Marine Corps officials that collection of these
data has been a low priority. We believe that funding and priorities
should be aligned to the greatest extent possible to provide greater
assurance that the department's resources are being used prudently. As
stated in our report, DOD can achieve long-term cost savings by
investing in additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. In
addition, investments in corrosion prevention measures may reduce the
amount of maintenance needed on equipment items, thereby extending the
availability of equipment items over their life cycle. On the basis of
our evaluation of DOD's comments, we have added a recommendation that
DOD specify actions, milestones, and resources for implementing our
recommendations to the Army and the Marine Corps.
DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix II.
Scope and Methodology:
We focused our review on the prepositioned assets managed by the Army
and Marine Corps because these two services have the majority of the
military's prepositioned assets, and these services provided most of
the equipment used in current operations in Southeast Asia.
To assess the measures taken by the Army and Marine Corps to reduce the
impact that corrosion has on prepositioned assets, we met with DOD and
service command officials responsible for managing and maintaining
prepositioned assets; obtained their assessments and perspectives on
corrosion prevention and mitigation programs and strategies; and
obtained and reviewed DOD and service policies, procedures, and
practices, including technical orders and manuals, for managing and
maintaining prepositioned assets. We met with DOD officials involved
with developing DOD's long-term strategy to prevent and control
corrosion. We also discussed additional actions that could be taken to
further prevent and mitigate corrosion. In addition, we visited
selected prepositioning locations and maintenance facilities, including
the Army's facilities in Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Camp Carroll,
South Korea, and the Marine Corps Logistics Command in Albany, Georgia,
and Blount Island Command in Jacksonville, Florida.
To assess the availability of corrosion-related data to the Army and
Marine Corps to support corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts for
prepositioned assets, we met with DOD and service command officials
responsible for managing and maintaining prepositioned assets, and
obtained and reviewed DOD and military service policies and procedures
for collecting and reporting maintenance costs and related equipment
material condition information. We obtained and analyzed various cost
and maintenance reports on these assets, including inspection and
maintenance logs, databases and assessments, and after-action reports.
In particular, we discussed the barriers that exist to identifying and
quantifying the impact of corrosion on prepositioned assets'
maintenance costs and material condition, and the metrics and related
information systems needed to better collect, track, report, and manage
efforts to prevent and mitigate corrosion as well as quantify the
related funding requirements to address this issue.
We interviewed officials and obtained documentation at the following
locations:[Footnote 20]
* Office of the Secretary of Defense:
* Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office:
* Joint Chiefs of Staff:
* Director of Logistics:
* Army:
* Headquarters, Department of the Army:
* U.S. Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia:
* Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Michigan, and Rock
Island, Illinois:
* U.S. Army Field Support Command, Rock Island, Illinois:
* U.S. III Army Corps, Fort Hood, Texas:
* U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Afloat, Goose Creek, South
Carolina:
* U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth U.S. Army, Yongsan Garrison, South
Korea:
* U.S. Army Field Support Battalion Far East, Camp Carroll, Waegwan,
South Korea:
* Materiel Support Center Korea, Camp Carroll, Waegwan, South Korea:
* 19th Theater Support Command, Camp Walker, Daegu, South Korea:
* U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii:
* Marine Corps:
* U.S. Marine Corps Headquarters:
* U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, Hawaii:
* I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California:
* II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejune, North Carolina:
* III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan:
* Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Virginia:
* Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Georgia:
* Blount Island Command, Jacksonville, Florida:
* Office of the Inspector General of the Marine Corps:
* Navy:
* Bureau of Medicine and Surgery:
* Naval Facilities Engineering Command:
* CNA Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia:
* U.S. Navy Inspector General:
* Naval Air Systems Command, Office of the Inspector General, Patuxent
River, Maryland:
* Naval Audit Service:
* Naval Medical Logistics Command, Fort Detrick, Maryland:
* Navy Expeditionary Medical Command, Cheatham Annex, Williamsburg,
Virginia:
* Military Sealift Command:
* Air Force:
* Headquarters, Seventh Air Force, South Korea:
* Unified Commands:
* United States Pacific Command:
* United States Forces Korea:
We conducted our work from May 2005 through February 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We reviewed
available data for inconsistencies and discussed the data with DOD and
service officials. We determined that the data used for our review were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Army, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-8365. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
William M. Solis, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Military Services' Prepositioning Programs:
The military services have prepositioning programs to store combat or
support equipment and supplies near areas with a high potential for
conflict and to speed response times and reduce the strain on other
mobility assets.
The Army's program involves three primary categories of stocks: combat
brigade sets, operational projects, and war reserve sustainment stocks
stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships around the world.
The Marine Corps also prepositions equipment and supplies aboard
prepositioning ships and at land sites in Norway. The Navy's
prepositioning efforts are comparatively small, used mainly to support
the Marine Corps' prepositioning program and deploying forces. The Navy
prepositions equipment and supplies at land sites and aboard the
maritime prepositioning ships. The Air Force prepositions stocks of war
reserve equipment and supplies to meet initial contingency requirements
and to sustain early deploying forces. The Air Force's prepositioned
war reserve stocks include bare base sets; vehicles; munitions; and a
variety of consumable supplies, such as rations, fuel, support
equipment, aircraft accessories, and medical supplies. The services'
prepositioning programs are briefly described in table 1.
Table 1: Description of Prepositioning Programs:
Service: Army;
Types of Stocks: Combat brigade sets;
Description: * Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships;
* Sets are designed to support 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers;
* Heavy weaponry, such as tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles;
* Support equipment, such as trucks and High Mobility Multi- purpose
Wheeled Vehicles;
* Spare parts and other sustainment stocks to support the early stages
of a conflict.
Types of Stocks: Sustainment stocks;
Description: * Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships;
* Replacement equipment for losses in early stages of operations or
until resupply is established;
* Includes major end items, such as aircraft engines and tracked
vehicles;
* Secondary items, such as meals, clothing, petroleum supplies,
construction materials, ammunition, medical materials, and repair
parts.
Types of Stocks: Operational project stocks;
Description: * Stored at land sites and aboard prepositioning ships;
* Authorized material above unit authorizations designed to support
Army operations or contingencies;
* Equipment and supplies for special operations forces, bare base sets,
petroleum and water distribution, mortuary operations, and prisoner-of-
war operations.
Service: Navy/Marine Corps;
Types of Stocks: Maritime prepositioning force;
Description: * Consists of 16 prepositioning ships organized into three
squadrons;
* Each squadron supports about 15,000 Marines for up to 30 days;
* Includes combat systems, communications systems, construction
equipment, munitions, medical supplies, and sustainment stocks.
Types of Stocks: Prepositioning program-Norway;
Description: * Several land sites located in central Norway;
* Designed to support 13,000 Marines for up to 30 days;
* Includes vehicles, weapons, munitions, rations, and other equipment
that will be used to support any geographic combatant command.
Types of Stocks: Navy prepositioned assets;
Description: * Assets are stored aboard maritime prepositioning ships
and at land sites;
* Equipment to offload prepositioning ships, including material
handling equipment, ramps and barges, landing and amphibious craft, and
bulk fuel;
* Construction equipment, such as cranes, forklifts, trucks, and
tractor trailers;
* Includes six 500-bed fleet hospitals[A].
Service: Air Force;
Types of Stocks: Bare base sets;
Description: * Base operating support equipment used to house forces,
and equipment and supplies needed to support airfield operations.
Types of Stocks: Vehicles;
Description: * Includes trucks, buses, and High Mobility Multi-purpose
Wheeled Vehicles.
Types of Stocks: Other support equipment and supplies;
Description: * Includes materiel handling equipment, rations, fuel,
fuel support equipment, aircraft accessories, and medical supplies at
land sites and munitions aboard four prepositioning ships.
Source: GAO.
Notes: In addition to the services' programs, the Defense Logistics
Agency prepositions food and bulk fuel to support a range of
contingency operations and training exercises. The Special Operations
Command relies on the military services to preposition common support
items for its forces, such as base support items and vehicles.
[A] The Navy is in the process of transitioning from 500-bed fleet
hospitals to smaller modular units.
[End of table]
The military services store these stocks of equipment and supplies at
several land sites and aboard prepositioning ships around the world.
Most of the military services store equipment and supplies in Southwest
Asia, the Pacific theater, Europe, and aboard prepositioning ships.
Figure 1 shows the major locations of prepositioned stocks.
Figure 1: Locations of Army (USAR), Marine Corps (USMC), Navy (USN),
and Air Force (USAF) Prepositioned Stocks:
[See PDF for image]
Note: DOD also prepositions smaller stocks of equipment and supplies at
other locations not identified on this map.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
June 5, 2006:
Acquisition Technology And Logistics:
Mr. William M. Solis:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Solis:
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO Draft
Report GAO-06-709, "DEFENSE MANAGEMENT: Additional Measures to Reduce
Corrosion of Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings,"
dated April 28, 2006 (GAO Code 350648).
The Department continues to consider corrosion to be an important issue
associated with cost, readiness, and safety of its weapon systems and
facilities. As a result, emphasis on prevention and mitigation of
corrosion across all mission areas and obligations remain a top
priority within the Department.
The GAO report makes three "Recommendations for Executive Action." We
concur and are committed to meeting the requirements of the Congress
and, to the extent possible, implementing the positive recommendations
of the subject GAO response. The Department's primary point of contact
for this report is Daniel J. Dunmire, Special Assistant, DOD Corrosion
Policy and Oversight.
Signed by:
Mark D. Schaeffer:
Director:
Systems and Software Engineering:
Enclosure:
DOD Recommendations for Executive Action:
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED April 28, 2006 GAO CODE 350648/GAO-06-709:
"DEFENSE MANAGEMENT: Additional Measures to Reduce Corrosion of
Prepositioned Military Assets Could Achieve Cost Savings"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to examine the feasibility of using
temporary shelters, including humidity-controlled facilities, to store
land-based prepositioned assets currently stored outdoors, and if such
use is determined to be feasible, to take appropriate actions to
implement the use of shelters to the maximum extent possible. (Page 12/
GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur.
The U. S. Army has identified humidity controlled facilities as a key
technology to prevent corrosion on prepositioned assets. The Army is
already evaluating potential storage options for prepositioned assets
currently stored outdoors in Army Preposition Stocks. Controlled-
humidity is a requirement for newly built facilities both on land and
sea. All U.S. Army future prepositioned stocks strategies will include
review of available facilities as part of the selection of
prepositioned locations.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to collect corrosion-related data, as
required in existing Army regulations, and use these data to support
additional corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. (Page 13/GAO
Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur.
The U.S. Army requires the establishment of and tracking metrics for
all corrosion-prevention projects funded by their corrosion prevention
and control office. The U.S. Army Materiel Command is capturing metrics
for specific weapon systems/facility projects, and these data are used
to evaluate the effectiveness of these projects.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to require the collection of
corrosion-related data and use these data to support additional
corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. (Page 13/GAO Draft
Report):
DOD RESPONSE: Concur.
The Marine Corps Corrosion and Control Program Office agrees that the
Marine Corps maintenance reporting system does not provide sufficient
information to determine the condition of assets as related to
corrosion. Data is not adequate for determining either cost of
corrosion or mission readiness related to corrosion, but the tools for
collecting and analyzing the data exists. Collection of adequate data
is not a matter of being a low priority to the Marine Corps but a
funding issue.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William M. Solis (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Gosling, Assistant
Director; Larry Bridges; Renee Brown; Lisa Canini; Amy Sheller; Allen
Westheimer; and Tim Wilson were major contributors to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Defense Logistics: Better Management and Oversight of
Prepositioning Programs Needed to Reduce Risk and Improve Future Plans,
GAO-05-427 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 6, 2005).
[2] Among recent changes, the Army is reconstituting prepositioning
stocks in Southwest Asia and recently completed a significant effort to
repair prepositioned items in South Korea. In addition, the Army plans
to cut its afloat prepositioning capability in half (from two brigade
sets to one) and is planning to reduce the contractor workforce at
Goose Creek, South Carolina, where maintenance is performed on the
equipment.
[3] Corrosion is defined under 10 U.S.C. Section 2228 as the
deterioration of a material or its properties caused by a reaction of
that material with its chemical environment.
[4] H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-622, at 98.
[5] GAO, Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs
and Increase Readiness, GAO-03-753 (Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2003).
[6] Office of the Secretary of Defense, Long-Term Strategy to Reduce
Corrosion and the Effects of Corrosion on the Military Equipment and
Infrastructure of the Department of Defense (December 2003).
[7] Defense Science Board, Report on Corrosion Control (October 2004).
[8] With regard to readiness, for example, on October 24, 2005, the
Army reported high readiness levels for prepositioned assets stored on
ships in Army Strategic Flotilla II (Diego Garcia). Similarly, as of
January 31, 2006, the Marine Corps reported high readiness levels for
equipment stored on its prepositioning ships.
[9] Army Technical Manual 38-470. 10/20 refers to the suffix found on
Army technical manuals pertaining to vehicle and equipment maintenance
practices.
[10] Marine Corps Headquarters, Prepositioning Programs Handbook (March
2005).
[11] The Marine Corps' Prepositioning Programs Handbook describes the
process used to maintain prepositioned equipment and supplies that are
stored by subjecting them to periodic quality assurance inspections,
replacement or rotation, and logistic support to maintain the highest
state of combat readiness. See also Corrosion Control Procedures; Depot
Maintenance Activities for Marine Corps Equipment (TM-3080-50);
Organizational Corrosion Prevention and Control Procedure for USMC
Equipment (TM-4795-12/1); and U.S. Marine Corps Maritime Prepositioning
Force Operations, Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-32/Navy
Tactics, Technicians, and Procedures 3-02.3.
[12] We visited maintenance facilities and spoke with personnel
responsible for equipment maintenance, including treatment for
corrosion, but we did not review how effective the services were in
meeting maintenance standards.
[13] Until recently, the equipment located in South Korea suffered from
serious maintenance deficiencies and readiness shortfalls because of
long-standing management problems. The Army implemented an intense
effort to address these deficiencies and reported that all equipment
was restored to required maintenance standards by the end of fiscal
year 2005. See GAO, Defense Logistics: Better Planning and
Accountability Needed to Ensure Mission Capability of Army
Prepositioned Stocks in South Korea, GAO-05-751 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 6, 2005).
[14] These data, in addition to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, include smaller
prepositioning sites in Qatar and Afghanistan.
[15] Marine Corps mishap and safety recordkeeping and reporting
guidance requires the collection and reporting of mishap causes,
including some information on corrosion, if relevant. For example, when
a mishap occurs, corrosion problems, such as corroded parts, corrosion
control inadequacies or preservation failures, should be listed in the
mishap report if they were causes of the mishap. OPNAVINST 5102.1D.
[16] According to Army Regulation 750-59, these surveys are to include
an assessment of the condition of equipment, to include prepositioned
material; an evaluation of program management and procedures; and the
development of corrective action plans.
[17] According to Department of the Army Pamphlet 738-750, Functional
Users Manual for The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS),
quality deficiencies, such as those caused by corrosion, are to be
reported when the defect may cause death, injury, or severe illness;
would cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; or critically
restricts combat readiness capabilities.
[18] GAO-03-753.
[19] Lighterage is small craft--powered and nonpowered--designed to
transport cargo or personnel from ship to shore. Lighterage includes
amphibious vehicles, landing craft, causeways, and barges. Marine Corps
officials estimate that at least 50 percent of the $35,000 needed to
repair the average nonmotorized lighterage equipment is used to address
corrosion-related damage.
[20] Unless otherwise noted, the officials listed have their offices in
the Pentagon or at locations in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
