However, DOD did not agree with our recommendation. As of November 2012, our review found that project  managers had not submitted the required final reports for 50 of the 80  projects (over 60 percent) funded from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Project Managers Have Not Submitted Many Final and Follow-On Reports

DOD has invested more than $68 million in 80 infrastructure-related  corrosion projects funded from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, but project  managers have not submitted all of the required reports on whether the  corrosion-control technologies are effective. DOD’s strategic plan also requires that follow-on reports be submitted  within two years after a project is completed and transitioned to use in the  military department. We found that project managers had not submitted 15 of the  41 required follow-on reports (37 percent). According to Standards for Internal Control in   agencies should use internal controls that  the Federal Government,provide a reasonable assurance that the agencies have effective and  efficient operations, and have reliable financial reports and other reports  for internal and external use. However,  when comparing the reassessed return-on-investment estimates included  in the projects’ follow-on reports with the reassessed estimates in the  Corrosion Office’s records, we found that the Corrosion Office had not  updated all of its records with the return-on-investment estimates from the  follow-on reports. Specifically, we found that for 5 of 25 projects  (20 percent) funded in fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Corrosion  Office had not updated its records to reflect the reassessed return-on- investment estimates included in the projects’ follow-on reports. The  Corrosion Office may use this return-on-investment data in its reporting,  both internally and externally, such as in DOD’s annual corrosion budget  report to Congress. Without accurate and timely return-on-investment estimates  maintained in the Corrosion Office’s records for corrosion projects,  Congress and DOD corrosion-control managers may not have sufficient  and reliable information about returns on investment for their oversight of  completed projects. However, in our interviews with  installation officials who were involved with corrosion work, slightly more  than half of the officials were unaware of DOD’s Corrosion Office, their  respective Corrosion Executive, or the training, information, and other  resources available through the related offices. Without effective  actions to ensure timely submission of reports, decision makers may be  unaware of potentially useful technologies to address corrosion. Further, to provide greater assurance that the military departments will  meet reporting milestones for future projects, we recommend that the  Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics— in coordination with the Director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and  Oversight—revise corrosion-related guidance to clearly define a role for  the military departments’ Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives to  assist the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding their  departments’ project management offices accountable for submitting  infrastructure-related reports in accordance with the DOD Corrosion  Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. To ensure that all relevant infrastructure officials receive pertinent  corrosion information, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Army,  Navy, and Air Force departments direct their assistant secretaries  responsible for acquisitions, technology and logistics to require the  military departments’ Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives—in  coordination with their installation management commands and in  consultation with the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight—to  develop a targeted communication strategy and an accompanying action  plan for their departments to ensure the timely flow of key information to  all relevant service officials, particularly to officials at the installation level,  about corrosion-control activities and initiatives, such as training  opportunities and outcomes of the infrastructure-related corrosion  projects. In its comments, DOD stated that it is developing a web-based  tracking tool for the Corrosion Office, Corrosion Executives, and project  managers to input and extract project-related data, and DOD expects the  change to result in increased timeliness and standardization of project  data to include revised reporting deadlines for final and follow-on reports. In response to our  fourth recommendation that DOD take action to ensure that its records  reflect complete, timely and accurate data on the projects’ return on  investment, DOD partially concurred with the recommendation and stated  that this new web-based system would provide data including return-on- investment estimates, and would be accessible to other parties, including  the Corrosion Office, Corrosion Executives and project managers. We continue to believe that the Corrosion Office could use its existing  authorities to identify and implement other incentives or methods to  address reasons that project management offices cite for not meeting  reporting milestones. To address our third objective to assess the extent to which DOD’s  corrosion-control officials have fully informed all relevant officials within  each department about efforts to prevent and mitigate corrosion of  facilities and other infrastructure, we reviewed relevant legislation and  guidance, DOD policies and publications, and the DOD and the military  departments’ strategic plans to obtain information on the management of  DOD’s corrosion prevention and control program.
Why GAO Did This Study

According to DOD, corrosion can significantly affect the cost of facility maintenance and the expected service life of DOD facilities. While corrosion is not always highly visible, it can lead to structural failure, loss of capital investment, and environmental damage. In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed DODs corrosion prevention and control program for facilities and infrastructure. In this report, GAO assessed the extent that DOD (1) met reporting requirements, (2) maintained accurate return-on-investment data in its records, and (3) fully informed relevant officials of its corrosion-control efforts. GAO reviewed DOD policies and plans, met with corrosion-control officials, and visited and interviewed officials at 32 installations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has invested more than $68 million in 80 projects in fiscal years 2005 through 2010 to demonstrate new technology addressing infrastructure-related corrosion, but project managers have not submitted all required reports on the results of these efforts to the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office (Corrosion Office). The DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan requires project managers to submit a final report when a project is complete, and submit a follow-on report within two years after the military department implements the technology. As of November 2012, GAO found that project managers had not submitted final reports for 50 of the 80 projects (63 percent) funded in fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Also, project managers had not submitted follow-on reports for 15 of the 41 projects (37 percent) funded in fiscal years 2005 through 2007. GAO found that the Corrosion Offices tracking system lacks key information to help ensure that project managers meet reporting requirements. Furthermore, the Corrosion Office is not fully exercising its authority to identify and implement options or incentives to address funding and other reasons given for not meeting reporting milestones. Also, GAO found inconsistency among the military departments Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives (Corrosion Executives) in holding project managers accountable for submitting the required reports. Without effective actions to ensure timely submission of final and follow-on reports, decision makers may be unaware of potentially useful technologies to address corrosion.
The Corrosion Office maintains records on its infrastructure-related corrosion projects, including initial and reassessed return-on-investment estimates, for internal and external reporting, such as in DODs annual budget report to Congress. GAO found that the Corrosion Offices records showed updates to the initial estimates for the proposed projects, but the office has not consistently updated its records to show the reassessed estimates included in the follow-on reports. Specifically, GAO found that the Corrosion Office did not update data in its records for 5 of 25 projects (20 percent) with completed follow-on reports. Federal internal control standards require agencies to use internal controls to provide assurance that they have reliable financial and other reports for internal and external use. Without accurate and timely data, Congress and DOD managers may not have reliable information on the estimated return on investment as they oversee corrosion projects.
DODs Corrosion Executives use mechanisms, such as briefings and site visits, to collect and disseminate information on corrosion-control activities in their departments; however, GAO found that slightly more than half of public works officials interviewed at 32 installations were unaware of DODs corrosion-related offices and resources. Under federal statute, Corrosion Executives are tasked with coordinating corrosion activities in their departments. GAO found that many relevant service officials interviewed did not receive key corrosion-control information because their Corrosion Executives do not have targeted communication strategies and accompanying action plans. Without a strategy and action plan, managers of facilities and infrastructure may not have access to all available information on efficient methods for corrosion prevention and control.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends five actions to improve DODs project reporting and tracking, the accuracy of its return-on-investment data, and its communication with stakeholders on corrosion-control activities for facilities and other infrastructure. DOD partially concurred with three recommendations and did not agree with two. DOD plans to implement a web-based tracking tool to improve data timeliness and standardization, among other actions. GAO continues to believe that its recommendations to improve project reporting are warranted, that the Corrosion Office should use its existing authorities to identify and implement other incentives for project managers to meet reporting milestones and that DOD should revise its guidance so that Corrosion Executives would assist with the oversight of project reporting.