Marine Corps Cost of Corrosion Declines by $85 Million
Service Tackles High Cost Drivers Outlined in DoD-Sponsored Report
Since the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight began issuing yearly reports that track what the military services spend on corrosion prevention and control, the Marine Corps has studied the numbers. Between fiscal years 2005 and 2008, the Marine Corps’ cost of corrosion decreased by $85 million, which included $68 million in vehicle maintenance expenditures and $17 million in the percentage of depot-level and field-level maintenance attributed to corrosion. To understand why, Cynthia Greenwood, CorrDefense editor-at-large, interviewed three officials in the Marine Corps’ Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC) Program Office. In the interview below, Matt Koch, CPAC Program Manager;
Bernard Friend, CPAC Operations and Sustainment Manager; and Andrew Sheetz, Engineering Agent for CPAC Acquisition Engineering, reviewed the secrets of their success.
CorrDefense: Based on the 2005 DoD cost of corrosion study, the Marine Corps spent $545 million on corrosion-related maintenance. Between 2007 and 2008, the service spent only $460 million on maintenance. What has the Marine Corps been doing to achieve this $85 million cost reduction?
Matt Koch: There isn’t any one thing in particular that we have done; it was a broad range of actions that has brought about this reduction. First off, the CPAC implemented our Inspect, Repair and Maintain philosophy for corrosion. When we really ramped up the program in 2004, we didn’t know how bad the corrosion problem was. You could walk around base and see tons of corrosion on vehicles, but there were no metrics telling us how many vehicles were affected and how severe it was. At that point we developed the Corrosion Category Codes that provided a rating of 1 to 5 for corrosion, based on the level of repair needed. Then we had teams of marines, civilians, and contractors assess the condition of the whole fleet. We were quite surprised to see that we had less than five percent of vehicles in Category 1 (the healthy category that does not require corrosion work). Once we had that data in hand, it was time to actually do something about it, i.e., repair the damage. This was done via our corrosion repair facility, which performs field-level maintenance consisting mainly of blasting and painting, and our corrosion service teams, which perform organizational-level maintenance such as touch-up painting and applying corrosion prevention compounds.
 |
Sergio Velasco, a corrosion service team member, applies a coating to an up-armored Humvee (high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Hawaii, formerly Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay. Photo by John Repp. |
CorrDefense: Can you explain more about the process of getting these teams and systems in place? What were some of the challenges?
Koch: While the corrosion repair facilities have been around for a while, implementing the corrosion service teams was a new concept to the Marine Corps. Both Bernard Friend and I had to fight really hard to secure funding to get these teams established at all Marine Corps bases, as well as traveling teams to service the reserve bases’ sites. It didn’t take long for the Corps to realize a good thing when they saw it. Within one year the corrosion codes assigned to the ground vehicle fleet had significantly improved and fewer vehicles needed extensive repair. Furthermore, active duty marines didn’t have to worry about corrosion and whether their vehicles worked properly. They could focus on their war-fighting mission and not worry about corrosion.
CorrDefense: What other strategies did you use to achieve the cost savings in your latest reports?
Koch: The final part of our strategy is to maintain—simply put, “now that we’ve fixed it, let’s keep it that way.” Most of the success of the “maintain” part of that equation is due to the work of the corrosion service teams. By continually servicing and reassessing the vehicles, we keep the corrosion from degrading the equipment to a higher level of repair. Furthermore, we established a Controlled Humidity Protection system that stores gear in a dehumidified environment, keeping it in a ready-to-roll status. It doesn’t take a corrosion engineer to understand that metal doesn’t just rust in a desert.
CorrDefense: Describe some of the support that you received from outside the immediate auspices of the CPAC.
Koch: During this time frame we ramped up our acquisition engineering support. We sought out all program managers who were working on a new procurement and provided them assistance to ensure that newly fielded products were more corrosion resistant. These included contract wording, prototype testing, production line audits, and fielded inspections. I was pleasantly surprised to see how many program managers were willing to take our assistance to get a better-fielded product. Finally, we ramped up our R&D efforts through partnerships with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division and Naval Research Laboratory. We focused on applied engineering and looked at products and processes that could actually be implemented to increase corrosion protection and decrease cost. By focusing our efforts on applied engineering, we were able to implement multiple product and process changes that helped the overall cause.
There are many other specific examples of what we have done to correct the corrosion issue; however, the main take-away would be that the success stems from an all-inclusive, cradle-to-grave, team effort based on the mantra, “Identify, Correct, and Maintain.”
CorrDefense: Based on your recent figures, depot-level costs decreased by 22 percent, whereas field-level maintenance efforts decreased by an impressive 46 percent. Can you outline specific corrosion prevention efforts that helped you reduce costs at the field-level?
 |
Mike Meek-Canom applies primer to an MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected) vehicle inside the corrosion repair facility at MCB Hawaii. Photo by John Repp. |
Bernard Friend: In 2004 a Marine Corps-wide equipment assessment was conducted to establish a corrosion condition baseline. Since that time, corrosion category 3 and 4 assets have been sharply lowered as a direct result of the servicing and repair efforts of corrosion service teams operating throughout the Marine Expeditionary Forces, and supplemented by the benefit gained from dehumidified shelters, protective covers, and automated wash-racks. The effects of these CPAC Program initiatives have resulted in reducing the overall number of Corrosion Category 4 assets from 13.5 percent to only 0.5 percent today. By the same token, Corrosion Category 3 assets have been dramatically reduced from 57.0 percent to only 15.5 percent of all equipment assessed today. On the other hand, the total number of assets resulting in either a Corrosion Category 1 or a Cat 2 assessment has increased from just 29.3 percent to an impressive 83.9 percent. Obviously, this drastic improvement in the overall condition of tactical ground equipment translates into substantial savings to the Marine Corps by extending the useful service life of these assets. The Marine Corps CPAC Program has become a major contributor in sustaining equipment for the long haul.
CorrDefense: The Marine Corps has established a precedent for working closely with weapon systems program managers through the acquisition process. Can you explain why this is important and discuss how these kinds of partnerships have translated into success for a specific corrosion prevention and control platform?
Koch: It’s been known for quite some time that it is more cost effective to build something right from the start, than it is to correct it after the fact. The problem has been that many weapon systems program managers didn’t know what to require or what could be expected of the OEM [original equipment manufacturer] for corrosion control. Furthermore, many program managers do not have the funding to staff a materials or corrosion control engineer; therefore they went without any advice and did things to the best of their ability. When I took over the position of program manager, I budgeted for multiple corrosion engineers (including myself) that could provide assistance to any platform that needed support. Being as how the Marine Corps is relatively small, it didn’t take long before every new acquisition and program manager was coming to the CPAC program office for advice and assistance. Additionally, the position in which I sit is in the Systems Engineering division of Marine Corps Systems Command and every program has to go through our office to pass gate reviews. I like to think that we never make the process hard for program managers. Working with them, I always like to use the philosophy that “I’m here to support you,” rather than, “You must follow my requirements.” That way of thinking has paid great dividends in bringing new programs to our office. Now, program managers contact us at the very beginning. It’s a great working relationship.
CorrDefense: Specifically, in working with program managers and original equipment manufacturers, how have you gone about identifying testing with a specific pass/fail criterion? Please discuss how this has been done successfully on a specific weapon system.
Andrew Sheetz: It wasn’t until the late 1990s that the military had any real requirements or methods for evaluating corrosion on ground vehicles other than panel testing. Although panel testing is still an important part of our evaluation of corrosion control technologies, when practical we prefer to use an Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test on prototype/Low Rate Initial Production vehicles. In the late 1990s, this type of testing really started taking off, specifically with the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles for the Army and the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement for the Marines. However, this testing was largely based on commercial automotive standards and requirements. That’s why in the early 2000s a Marine Corps-specific Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test was developed using data from fielded vehicles and matching the test conditions to various corrosion environments that the Marines operate in. While the test does not guarantee “no failures,”—we are continually being deployed to new terrain and climates—it does help produce vehicles that are more robust and reliable against the punishment the military subjects them to. We have also used this data to help guide our panel testing and evaluations of proposed corrosion control methods. We use laboratory panel tests to evaluate the corrosion performance of unknown systems or new vendors to highlight quality and general concerns and then use the Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test to test the vehicle as a system, as all of these technologies are brought together.
A great example of this can be seen with the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement. The CPAC Program was engaged early-on in this particular acquisition and helped the program manager develop corrosion prevention and control acquisition language, which included specific requirements for panel and vehicle testing. The OEM submitted panels representative of their production processes to the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division for initial test and evaluation, the results of which were communicated back to the OEM (through the program manager). These were then incorporated into the vehicle’s construction. During Low Rate Initial Production, a vehicle was then subjected to the Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test. The OEM was contractually required to address any deficiencies that were identified and correct them to the satisfaction of the government.
 |
Jordan Kobashigawa removes the existing coating to prepare the sub-frame surface of an M105 cargo trailer at the corrosion repair facility at MCB Hawaii. Photo by John Repp. |
CorrDefense: What are some ways in which you have successfully engineered or considered corrosion holistically into the design of a particular weapon system?
Sheetz: Again, the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement is the perfect example of a recent program where corrosion was considered holistically for the acquisition program. This started with the contractual wording that the CPAC developed for this vehicle. It included specific requirements for corrosion coverage, severity and overall requirement of form, fit and function for the vehicle. By establishing these requirements from the beginning, the OEM is incentivized to consider corrosion control as part of their design, especially when (as was the case with the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement) they are required to correct any deficiencies that are identified to the satisfaction of the government and ensure that those requirements are retrofitted into any vehicles they have already delivered, if already in Low Rate Initial Production. In addition to identifying the issues, we work jointly with the OEM (on behalf of the program manager) to assist them in identifying materials and processes to correct these deficiencies. We truly view this as a team approach to developing vehicles for the military that are inherently corrosion resistant. Basically, we have engaged people early in the process and provided them with the tools to specify, evaluate, and correct the issues identified.
CorrDefense: What are the benefits of the Marine Corps’ corrosion condition database for equipment? When did you establish your vehicle inspection protocol?
Friend: Recognizing a continuing corrosion problem with its ground equipment assets, in 2004, the Marine Corps invested in establishing a formalized corrosion inspection and reporting process that would provide accurate and repeatable results. This led to the development of the CPAC Corrosion Assessment Checklist, which contains standardized data collection elements, as well as the CPAC Program Management Tool, which serves as a corrosion data repository and reporting tool. Once developed, a Marine Corps-wide equipment assessment was completed later in 2004, which established a corrosion condition baseline for these equipment items. A major key to our continued success is the configuration management of the inspection protocols, which is the responsibility of the CPAC Program Office.
CorrDefense: How exactly does the vehicle inspection protocol operate?
Friend: The CPAC Corrosion Assessment Checklist identifies equipment as falling into one of five corrosion categories: Category 1 is the best condition and Category 5 is the worst. The checklist is an effective management tool leading to cost reduction through improvements in how the CPAC program office is able to “Identify, Correct, and Maintain” assets. It is used to locate problem areas on equipment end items, identify component failure trends, determine root-causes of these problems, identify candidates for induction into a corrosion repair facility for field-level maintenance activities, and aid in identifying effective solutions to assist in countering their negative impact on equipment life-cycle longevity. Approximately 73,000 corrosion assessment records of existing assets are maintained in the CPAC Program Management Database today.
CorrDefense: Can you provide an overview of the Marine Corps’ corrosion service teams and corrosion repair facilities, which are currently in place at bases such as Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton, for example?
Friend: The CPAC Program Office places great emphasis on maintaining the quality of corrosion assessment data contained in the CPAC Program Management Tool. In 2009, the Marine Corps CPAC Program effectively implemented enhanced data verification and validation procedures conducted by CPAC personnel during the data collection and reporting process. The improved accuracy of the data records provided unit commanders with the ability to better assess equipment availability and readiness, identify corrosion trends and problem areas, budget for CPAC maintenance dollars, and identify candidate assets for corrosion service team maintenance, or induction into a corrosion repair facility.
Seven corrosion service teams located throughout the Marine Corps provide organizational-level maintenance via the completion of surface preparation and touch-up paint operations, the application of corrosion prevention compounds, and the collection of corrosion assessment data. There are four corrosion repair facilities on the other hand, which provide field/intermediate through limited depot-level corrosion related repairs on fielded assets to mitigate corrosion repair issues beyond the capability of a corrosion service team.
 |
Bernard Friend (left), Matt Koch, and Andrew Sheetz manage the Marine Corps Corrosion Prevention and Control Office program, headquartered in Quantico, Virginia. |
CorrDefense: Have there been any changes to the corrosion service team organization and training since the CorrDefense e-magazine covered that program’s success in 2009? (See One of DoD’s Smartest Corrosion Programs is Driven by the Marine Team.)
Friend:Since the last article, the Marine Corps has stood up three mobile corrosion repair facility operations that supplement the throughput of fixed-site corrosion repair facilities located throughout the Marine Expeditionary Forces. The mobile facilities provide greater flexibility in repairing assets located in outlying units, and eliminate the need for transportation costs.
Since 2008, the knowledge base of our contracted field personnel has been increased through required corrosion-related training (e.g., DAU course CLM038—Corrosion Prevention and Control), and various levels of professional certification obtained through NACE International and Star 4D. The CPAC Office operates under the philosophy that a better-educated workforce is more effective because it produces a higher quality product, leading to increased productivity and cost savings.
CorrDefense: There are several factors that seem to account for the success of the Marine Corps Corrosion Program, which the other services might emulate. These factors include the program’s small community, annual interaction that considers the needs of active duty personnel, and support at the command level. Can you highlight any or all of these factors and discuss additional factors that account for the Marine Corps’ success in lowering the cost of corrosion?
Friend: The threat of future budget reductions across the DoD services, including the Marine Corps, has compelled the CPAC Program Office to find new ways to do “more with the same.” Identifying better practices and courses of action that will lead to a more effective and efficient management approach in the use of limited CPAC funding is our priority. This has been accomplished in part by identifying and addressing Marine Expeditionary Force issues and concerns at an annual CPAC Working Group Conference; maintaining regular communication with the Marine Expeditionary Forces on current CPAC program initiatives to obtain buy-in and feedback; developing standardized operating procedures and quality assurance practices for use by the corrosion service teams and repair facilities; consolidating multiple contractor logistics support contracts for similar work into a single contract to gain the benefit of economies of scale; identifying equipment that no longer requires services; and reporting weekly to the marines on the current status of equipment for use by unit commanders in management decisions. These are not all-inclusive but are factors that have contributed to lowering the cost of corrosion. Our foundation is built on how we “Identify, Correct, and Maintain” equipment, a system which could be emulated across all the services in some manner.
|
