Acceptance of Project Proposal Submissions to the Corrosion Office Often Varies by the Nature of Corrosion Executives’ Oversight and Review and Type of Project Proposed

The acceptance of military departments’ CPC project proposals varied  relative to the nature of review—if any—that the Corrosion Executives  required before proposals were submitted to the Corrosion Office for  funding consideration. The panel member also told us that the Army and Navy fiscal year 2011  proposals were more complete and more effectively addressed the  selection criteria than those submitted by the Air Force. The panel’s feedback to the authors of the Air Force project proposals  highlighted areas where the provided information was insufficient or  incomplete, such as  the project managers did not follow the project proposal template in  the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, which  includes topics to be addressed in project proposals;  the contents of the project proposals did not explain the technology  demonstration aspects of the project; or  the project proposals did not include information on matching funds  that would be provided by the Air Force. The Corrosion Office Has a Rigorous Process to Evaluate CPC Proposals for Funding, but Selection Criteria Are Not Clearly Communicated

For fiscal year 2011, the Corrosion Office used a rigorous multistep  process to review and select CPC project proposals that were acceptable  for funding; however, some military department personnel involved in the  process did not clearly understand the criteria used to select projects for  funding. Corrosion Office officials told  us that because the CPC projects are generally funded for 2 years of  implementation and ROI validations are required within 3 years of  completing the project’s implementation, reviews for projects funded in  fiscal year 2005 are due by the end of fiscal year 2010. The military departments have completed these reviews, including the ROI  validations, for 10 (36 percent) of the 28 implemented projects funded in  fiscal year 2005. Army and Navy corrosion officials told us that, because CPC  funding is awarded for a 2-year project implementation period, they  typically do not have sufficient funds remaining for validating the ROI  after projects are implemented. One  project selection panel member told us that the lack of completed ROI  validations makes it more difficult for the panel to make decisions about  how to change project selection criteria to invest limited funds in the types  of projects with the greatest benefits. Product Teams Propose and Implement DOD-wide CPC Activities, and the Staffing Process for the Teams Is Evolving

The Corrosion Office has created seven Product Teams to propose and  implement DOD-wide CPC activities in seven areas, as discussed earlier. Using volunteers from the military departments, the Product Teams  propose activities, such as determining the costs of corrosion, which are  then selected for funding. Develop and implement a plan to ensure that return on investment  validations are completed as scheduled. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with one of our  recommendations and did not agree with the other two recommendations. However, DOD  also stated: (1) “While not always defined as ‘criteria,’ all factors  considered in the evaluation are articulated in Appendix D” and (2) “While  not expressly defined as ‘criteria,’ these indices are clearly criteria from  which anyone submitting a project plan can determine what is likely to  improve the chances of a higher DEA [the model used in the panel  process] ranking.”
In developing our findings, we analyzed the Strategic Plan to understand  the process and criteria used to evaluate CPC projects for funding;  observed the panel proceedings for both the preliminary and final project  reviews; discussed the panel process with panel members and military  department Corrosion Executives; and discussed their understanding of  the process and the criteria used for project evaluation with Corrosion  Executives and project authors. To address our objectives, we met with the Director of the Office of the  Secretary of Defense’s Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office (Corrosion  Office), members of the Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) project  selection panel assembled by the Director of the Corrosion Office, DOD  contractors who assist the Director of the Corrosion Office in managing  the CPC program, each military department’s Corrosion Executive and  their staffs, representatives of three of the seven Working Integrated  Product Teams (Product Teams) that coordinate CPC activities, and the  six project managers who authored the proposals for 11 of the CPC  projects included in our sample. To determine the extent the Corrosion Executives are involved in  preparing CPC project proposals for submission to the Corrosion Office  for funding consideration, we met with each of the Corrosion Executives  and their staffs and reviewed the military departments’ corrosion reports,  to identify whether there was a process at each department to review CPC  projects.
Why GAO Did This Study

Corrosion costs DOD over $23 billion annually, affects both equipment and facilities, and threatens personnel safety. DOD has taken steps to improve its corrosion prevention and control (CPC) efforts. These efforts include reorganizing the DOD-wide Corrosion Office and instituting Corrosion Executive positions in each of the military departments. In response to the Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 DOD appropriations bill, GAO evaluated to what extent (1) the Corrosion Executives are involved in preparing CPC project proposals for submission, (2) the Corrosion Office has created a process to review and select projects for funding, and (3) the military departments have validated the return on investment (ROI) for funded projects. GAO also reviewed the process the Corrosion Office uses to determine the CPC activities that it will fund. To carry out this study, GAO observed project selection panel meetings, interviewed corrosion officials, and reviewed documents and project proposals.

What GAO Found

The acceptance of the military departments' CPC proposals varied relative to the types of projects and nature of review that the military Corrosion Executives required before the proposals were submitted to the Corrosion Office for funding consideration. DOD guidance provides that Corrosion Executives coordinate CPC actions, including submitting corrosion project opportunities. Prior to submitting the proposals for a preliminary evaluation by the Corrosion Office's project selection panel, Army and Navy Corrosion Executives and staffs reviewed proposal summaries and provided feedback to the authors. The Air Force did not perform a review that included pre-submission feedback. Later, during a preliminary evaluation, the Corrosion Office's project selection panel determined that a much higher percentage of Army and Navy proposals were acceptable than those submitted by the Air Force. A selection panel member told us that because the Air Force did not perform a pre-submission review of proposals, deficiencies in those proposals were not corrected prior to the panel's evaluation. DOD has criteria and a rigorous multistep procedure for evaluating proposals, but some military department stakeholders indicated that this information is not communicated clearly. Previously, GAO noted involving stakeholders helps agencies target resources to the highest priorities. Criteria used for the project selection panel to evaluate proposed projects are not clearly identified in DOD's Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, and some project managers said that they were unfamiliar with how projects were evaluated. While the Corrosion Office already takes actions, such as providing in-depth feedback to proposals' authors and assembling corrosion experts to participate on the selection panel, unclear communications on some issues could adversely affect authors' abilities to prepare effective project proposals. The military departments are late in validating ROIs for some completed projects. The Strategic Plan suggests that follow-on reviews with validated ROIs are required for completed projects within 3 years after full project implementation. Project managers have completed these reviews for 10 of the 28 implemented projects funded in fiscal year 2005, with 8 of the 10 completed reviews performed by one Army command. Corrosion Executives told GAO that because CPC funding is awarded only for the 2-year project implementation period, they typically do not have funds remaining for validating ROIs after projects are completed. If the ROI validations of completed projects are not performed, the Corrosion Office will not have needed data to adjust project selection criteria in order to invest limited CPC funds in the types of projects with the greatest potential benefits. The Corrosion Office created Product Teams to implement DOD-wide CPC activities in seven areas. Using volunteers and a budget averaging around $4.5 million per year, the Teams propose activities, such as determining the costs of corrosion and DOD-wide specifications for CPC products, which are then selected for funding by the Director of the Corrosion Office. The Corrosion Executives are becoming more involved in Team activities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to: 1) improve the oversight of proposals submitted for funding consideration, 2) communicate more clearly the criteria used to select which projects will be funded, and 3) fund and complete ROI validations. In written comments on this report, DOD disagreed with the first two recommendations and agreed with the third, citing alternatives or differing views. GAO believes the recommendations remain valid.