Defense Management
Observations on DOD's Analysis of Options for Improving Corrosion Prevention and Control through Earlier Planning in the Requirements and Acquisition Processes Gao ID: GAO-09-694R May 29, 2009This report formally transmits briefing in response to section 1041 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The act requires the Comptroller General to review the Department of Defense's report on options for improving corrosion prevention and control, including the methodology used to assess the potential options, and provide the results to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees within 60 days after submission of the Department of Defense report. On April 29, 2009, we provided the briefing to staff of Congressional committees to satisfy the mandate and 60-day reporting requirement.
GAO-09-694R, Defense Management: Observations on DOD's Analysis of Options for Improving Corrosion Prevention and Control through Earlier Planning in the Requirements and Acquisition Processes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-694R
entitled 'Defense Management: Observations on DOD's Analysis of Options
for Improving Corrosion Prevention and Control through Earlier Planning
in the Requirements and Acquisition Processes' which was released on
May 29, 2009.
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-09-694R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 29, 2009:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Defense Management: Observations on DOD's Analysis of Options
for Improving Corrosion Prevention and Control through Earlier Planning
in the Requirements and Acquisition Processes:
This report formally transmits the attached briefing in response to
section 1041 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (see enclosure I). The act requires the
Comptroller General to review the Department of Defense's report on
options for improving corrosion prevention and control, including the
methodology used to assess the potential options, and provide the
results to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees within 60
days after submission of the Department of Defense report. On April
29, 2009, we provided the briefing to staff of your committees to
satisfy the mandate and 60-day reporting requirement.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense; the
Deputy 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. This
report will also be available at no charge on our Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staffs have any
questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8365
or solisw@gao.gov. 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 were Tom Gosling, Assistant
Director; Janine Prybyla; Matt Spiers; and Allen Westheimer.
Signed by:
William M. Solis:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable John M. McHugh:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure:
Observations on DOD‘s Analysis of Options for Improving Corrosion
Prevention and Control through Earlier Planning in the Requirements and
Acquisition Processes:
Briefing for Congressional Committees:
April 29, 2009:
Background:
The Department of Defense (DOD), through its costs of corrosion
studies, has identified nearly $12 billion in annual corrosion costs
(not including Air Force aircraft and missiles). Corrosion also affects
equipment readiness and safety.
For many years, DOD has recognized that earlier planning could lead
to corrosion prevention and control benefits. For example,
* In 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics issued a policy memorandum stating that corrosion
prevention should be specifically addressed at the earliest phases of
the acquisition process.
* DOD‘s 2003 Directive 5000.01 on the defense acquisition process
states that program managers shall consider corrosion prevention and
mitigation when making trade-off decisions that involve cost, useful
service, and effectiveness.
However, in 2007 we reported that most of the major acquisition
programs we reviewed had not incorporated key elements of corrosion
prevention planning.
Section 1041 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009 requires the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, to submit a
report on corrosion prevention and control (CPC). Specifically, the
report should include:
* comments and recommendations regarding potential improvements in CPC
through earlier planning;
* an evaluation and business case analysis of options for improving CPC
in DOD‘s requirements and acquisition processes, including the impact
of such potential improvements on system acquisition costs and life
cycle sustainment; and;
* an analysis of the following four options for including corrosion
control and prevention:
- as a key performance parameter (KPP) for assessing the selection of
materials and processes,
- as part of an existing KPP for sustainment,
- as part of the capability development document in the joint
capabilities integration and development system, and,
- as a requirement for weapon system managers to assess their CPC
requirements over the system‘s life cycle and include the results in
their acquisition strategy prior to contract solicitation.
The NDAA also requires GAO to review DOD‘s report, including the
methodology used to analyze the four options.
Engagement Objectives:
1. Identify the methodology and criteria DOD used to assess the four
options for improving CPC in the requirements and acquisition
processes;
2. Assess the extent to which DOD analyzed the impact of the options
on system acquisition costs and life cycle sustainment, and;
3. Determine whether service and Joint Staff officials agree with DOD‘s
assessment and if they have identified other potential options for
improving CPC in DOD‘s requirements and acquisition processes.
Scope and Methodology:
We reviewed DOD‘s March 6, 2009, report on CPC improvement options,
obtained supporting documentation, and interviewed Corrosion Policy and
Oversight officials at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics:
* to identify the criteria and methodology used, including the input
received from the acquisition and logistics communities, to assess the
options,
* to assess the analysis of the impact of corrosion improvement options
on system acquisition costs and life cycle sustainment, and,
* to determine the current availability of corrosion cost data, and
ongoing and planned efforts to obtain additional data.
We also interviewed corrosion, logistics, and acquisition officials
from the military services and the Joint Staff:
* to obtain their views regarding the four options, and,
* to determine if other options have been identified or if other
efforts are ongoing to improve CPC.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2009 through April
2009 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.
Summary:
DOD‘s methodology for assessing the four options used several
qualitative criteria and informal input from corrosion, acquisition, and
logistics subject matter experts.
DOD‘s report did not quantitatively analyze the impact of the options
on system acquisition costs and life cycle sustainment. According to
officials, the data is not yet available to do so, but efforts are
ongoing or planned that are expected to provide additional information
for a quantitative business case analysis.
Military service and Joint Staff officials generally agreed with DOD‘s
assessment of the four options, and identified two other options for
improving CPC that were not included in DOD‘s report. The recently
designated military department corrosion executives plan to assess
whether implementation guidance is needed for a new CPC planning
requirement that was recently incorporated in the acquisition process.
Objective 1: Methodology and Criteria Used to Assess Options:
DOD‘s methodology for assessing the four options used several
qualitative criteria to evaluate the likelihood that each option will
successfully improve lifecycle CPC actions and result in an effective
program.
Based on our review of DOD‘s report, we identified the following
qualitative criteria DOD used to assess the options:
* direct relationship to CPC,
* probability of influencing CPC, and,
* ability to be stated in operational terms and linked to a capability
requirement (such as personnel and system performance).
According to officials, these criteria were used to evaluate the overall
ability of each option to influence early CPC and maintain CPC as a
priority throughout the development and fielding of a system.
DOD‘s assessment did not address the feasibility of implementing each
option or the steps that would be necessary for implementation.
Informal input was sought from corrosion, logistics, and acquisition
subject matter experts across the department from July through October
2008 through a briefing at a DOD Corrosion Forum, several meetings, and
circulation of report drafts.
Informal input was obtained from officials from the following:
* July 2008 Corrosion Forum (84 attendees);
* Corrosion Working Integrated Product Teams;
* Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness);
* Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Maintenance Policy and
Programs);
* Joint Staff – Logistics;
* Joint Staff – Requirements.
On the basis of this approach, DOD concluded that including CPC in the
sustainment KPP (materiel availability metric) was the option with the
highest likelihood of successfully improving CPC because this KPP:
* Has already been implemented and is acceptable to the operational
community”in 2007, the Joint Staff established the sustainment KPP as a
mandatory KPP for all major defense acquisition programs, and,
* Has a strong likelihood of influencing CPC throughout the system life
cycle if the effects of corrosion on materiel availability can be
characterized. According to officials, however, predicting, measuring,
and assessing the relationship between corrosion and the sustainment
KPP is challenging.
DOD rated the remaining three options as having a low to moderate
likelihood of successfully improving CPC on their own because they are
difficult to express in operational terms and link to a capability
requirement.
However, DOD recognized these options had higher potential if
implemented with one or more of the other options. For example,
* Including CPC as part of the capability development document could be
very effective if implemented with the sustainment KPP.
* Including CPC as part of the acquisition strategy, if tied to a
capability requirement, should ensure the appropriate program structure
is in place to implement improved CPC.
Objective 2: Impact of Options on Acquisition and Sustainment Costs:
DOD‘s report did not quantitatively analyze the impact of the options
on system acquisition costs and life cycle sustainment.
Although two graphs in the report display quantitative relationships
between corrosion spending and readiness, Corrosion Policy and
Oversight officials based these graphs on assumptions regarding
potential impacts, not actual studies or results.
Officials explained that they were unable to assess the costs and
benefits of earlier CPC planning due to a lack of the following
validated data:
* Effects of corrosion on system availability, and,
* Associated reduction in life cycle costs resulting from improvements.
In addition, while DOD‘s cost of corrosion studies have highlighted
general areas where corrosion costs are occurring, officials said data
regarding the factors driving corrosion costs are also lacking.
Efforts are ongoing or planned that are expected to provide some of the
necessary data for a quantitative business case analysis.
* For example, the Corrosion Policy and Oversight office has sponsored
a study to assess the impact of corrosion on materiel availability
(sustainment KPP).
- The current focus is to determine the best methodology for the
study.
- A report was initially due in June 2009, but this date could slip
due to data issues.
* In addition, service return on investment status reports for fiscal
year 2005 CPC projects are due to the Corrosion Policy and Oversight
office in September 2009.
* To varying degrees, the services are using DOD cost of corrosion
studies to investigate the factors driving corrosion costs.
Objective 3: Perspectives of Service and Joint Staff Officials on CPC
Options:
Service and Joint Staff officials we spoke with generally agreed with
DOD‘s assessment of the four options. Some officials suggested other
ways for improving CPC during the acquisition process, including:
* A corrosion-specific sub-metric to support the sustainment KPP: The
Army is currently studying the usefulness of various metrics with
regard to measuring the impact of corrosion, as the materiel
availability metric is influenced by many factors in addition to
corrosion.
* A corrosion engineer: Air Force officials suggested that corrosion
planning could be improved if a full-time, government corrosion
engineer was required in each System Program Office whose sole
responsibility is to plan, implement, and monitor CPC activities.
However, the potential costs and benefits of this option have not been
studied or evaluated by the Air Force.
In December 2008, DOD issued DOD Instruction (DODI) 5000.02 and
required that a CPC plan be part of the acquisition strategy for
major defense acquisition programs.
The corrosion executives are currently assessing the needs of their
respective military departments, including the need for implementation
guidance related to the new corrosion requirement in DODI 5000.02.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force designated corrosion executives in
January 2009, as required by Section 903 of the fiscal year 2009 NDAA.
* Army – Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition Policy
and Logistics;
* Navy – Division Director, Ship Structures and Materials, Naval Sea
Systems Command;
* Air Force – Associate Director, Logistics, Office of the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support.
Concluding Observations:
While DOD‘s methodology was based on a qualitative analysis, with
limited supporting data, DOD‘s report recognizes that CPC
considerations are rightly placed at the earliest stages of the
requirements and acquisition processes.
DOD and the services have taken actions to improve early CPC planning
by:
* Including corrosion prevention and control planning as a mandatory
element in the acquisition plans for major acquisition programs,
* Designating corrosion executives to coordinate department-level
corrosion control and prevention program activities (including budget
programming), and,
* Initiating a study of the impact of corrosion on material
availability to more directly link the sustainment KPP to corrosion in
the future.
However, these actions have all been recently undertaken and it is too
early to determine the effects of these changes.
Views of Agency Officials:
To obtain agency views, we discussed a draft of this briefing with
officials from the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office.
They concurred with the facts presented.
[End of enclosure]
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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site,
[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.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
