AF CPC Report. Department of the Air Force. Annual Corrosion Prevention and Control Report for Fiscal Year December 2014

Transcription

1 Department of the Air Force Annual Corrosion Prevention and Control Report for Fiscal Year 2014 AF CPC Report 22 December 2014 Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $67,000 in Fiscal Years This includes $4,420 in expenses and $63,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2014Dec11 RefID: F-44C45F7

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary Background Air Force CPC Program Mission, Vision, and Goals CPC Program Highlights CPC Strategic Plan Cost of Corrosion Study: Bending the Cost Curve Reestablishing Key Standards Functional Highlights CCPE Highlights CPC Enterprise Enabler Highlights Major Command and ANG Highlights Weapon System Highlights CCPE Resource Requirements Goals and Metrics Recommendations For the AF CPC Program Conclusion Appendix A - Linkage between AF and DoD CPC strategies... A-1 Appendix B - CCPE-led Engagement... B-1 Appendix C - Corrosion Enterprise Enabler Actvities... C-1 Appendix D - MAJCOM and ANG Corrosion Program Activities... D-1 Appendix E - Weapon System-Specific Corrosion Activities... E-1 Appendix F - Corrosion R&D Project Summaries... F-1 Appendix G - Corrosion Recommendations... G-1 Appendix H - Acronyms... H-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. AF aerospace corrosion and non-corrosion maintenance costs Figure 2. Causes of aerospace system non-available hours (NAH) Figure 3. AF top-level structure and CPC Working Group representation Figure 4. The 2014 AF CPC Strategic Plan aligns with DoD guidance Figure 5. AF CPC Program Foundation and Pillars Page 1

3 Figure 6. Annual corrosion costs and corrosion percent of maintenance costs Figure 7. MIL-STD-1568 was reinstated in August Figure 8. Cost of corrosion and corrosion share of maintenance Figure 9. Aircraft and missile NAH and corrosion share of NAH Figure 10. Class A, B, and C safety mishap trends Figure 11. Development and selection process for Air Force project plan proposals.... C-6 Page 2

4 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2014 USAF Corrosion Prevention and Control Report Air Force (AF) efforts to reduce the effects of corrosion are starting to pay off. The predictable rise in corrosion maintenance costs have slowed and even hint at a bending of the cost curve. The AF Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive (CCPE) believes this positive trend results from the synergistic effect of increased awareness, improved corrosion processes, and the maturation of enterprise-level guidance. This moment may just be the time to apply additional Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) resources to exploit this momentum and drive corrosion maintenance costs down significantly. This past year featured several accomplishments that improved AF CPC management. For instance, the CCPE released a new Air Force CPC Strategic Plan in August The updated Strategic Plan better aligns goals, objectives, and metrics with the DoD corrosion strategy as required by the amendment to 10 USC 2228 specified in Public Law , Section 334. The new plan also addresses concerns identified in a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit. AF experts worked with sister military colleagues to reestablish key standards for CPC. The joint team worked to reinstate MIL-STD-1568, Materials and Processes for Corrosion Prevention and Control in Aerospace Weapons Systems, and is working with the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop an industry CPC standard for electronics. And last, but definitely not least, the increased CPC awareness in recent years is evident as AF Major Commands, Weapon system program offices, facilities managers, laboratory researchers, and maintainers are employing new technologies and processes and implementing best processes to reduce costs, increase weapon system availability, and make a safer work environment for AF warfighters. The benefits of an enterprise level CPC effort is apparent in the draft 2014 AF Cost of Corrosion report 1 that shows the beginnings of a bending of the corrosion cost curve mentioned in the previous paragraph. 2.0 BACKGROUND Congressional requirement: This report is submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in accordance with Title 10, US Code, Section 2228, Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. This law requires the Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive (CCPE) of each military department to submit an annual report to the OSD containing recommendations pertaining to the corrosion control and prevention program of the military department, including: 1) corrosion-related funding levels to carry out all of the duties of the executive; 2) demonstrate the linkage between the AF and OSD CPC programs; and 3) use performance metrics to measure progress toward goals and objectives from the Secretary of Defense. This report contains mandatory content and programmatic highlights. It should not be construed to contain an accounting of all USAF corrosion prevention and control (CPC) activities. 1 Herzberg, E. F., Baty, R., Chan, T. K., and O Meara, N.T. (2014). The Estimated Effect of Corrosion on the Cost and Availability of Air Force Aircraft and Missiles, McLean, VA: LMI, p. iii Page 3

5 Corrosion Impact: Corrosion, defined as the deterioration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of that material with its chemical environment, is one of the leading contributors to sustainment costs and equipment downtime across the DoD. As determined by various studies, the battle against corrosion (in all its forms) accounts for approximately one-quarter of the maintenance expenditures and downtime across the DoD. In dealing with Air Force aircraft and missiles, corrosion accounts for about a quarter of all maintenance costs and about 15% of all system non-available hours (NAH). Figure 1 shows that in FY13 corrosion cost the Air Force $6.025B, or 24.9% of the total maintenance budget. By targeting opportunities to reduce the cost of corrosion, the CPC program contributes significantly to the Secretary of the Air Force s priority of making every dollar count. 2 Figure 2 shows that corrosion caused over two million hours of NAH in FY13. 3 A 2004 Defense Science Board study estimated that up to 30% of these corrosion-related expenditures could be eliminated through optimal corrosion prevention and control measures. 4 Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive: Recognizing the pervasive impact of corrosion across all DoD systems and the substantial opportunities for savings, Congress passed Section 1067 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law This law enacted 10 U.S.C. 2228, which requires that the DoD designate a responsible official or organization to oversee corrosion prevention and mitigation, and directs a longterm strategy to reduce corrosion FY13 Aerospace System Maintenance Costs $ Other MX Cost ($B) FY13 Aerospace System Non-Available Hours 12,617,636 NAH Due to Other $6.025 Corrosion MX Cost ($B) Figure 2. AF aerospace corrosion and non-corrosion maintenance costs. 2,244,126 NAH Due to Corrosion Figure 1. Causes of aerospace system non-available hours (NAH). 2 USAF Strategic Plan, America s Air Force: A Call to the Future, Herzberg, E. F., Baty, R., Chan, T. K., and O Meara, N.T. (2014). The Estimated Effect of Corrosion on the Cost and Availability of Air Force Aircraft and Missiles. McLean, VA: LMI, p. iii-iv 4 Lynn, L., and Heilman, S. (2004). Defense Science Board Report on Corrosion Control. Pentagon, Washington, DC: USD(AT&L), p. 17 Page 4

6 and its effects. In February 2008, Congress enacted Section 371 of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which amended 10 U.S.C to strengthen the DoD CPC Program. This created a Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (CPO) who reports directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), with broad responsibilities for corrosion policy and oversight during acquisition and sustainment, including research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E). Shortly thereafter, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 directed that each military department identify a Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive (CCPE) to serve as the senior official within the department with responsibility for coordinating department-level corrosion control and prevention program activities, including budget programming. The establishment of the CCPE served to unify corrosion prevention and control (CPC) oversight responsibilities within the Air Force that were dispersed across a range of different organizations in the functions of acquisition, logistics, maintenance, and science and technology (S&T). Organizational structure: The AF CCPE resides within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ), as illustrated in Figure 3. In FY14, the CCPE continued to be a full time position supported by one Air Force Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) and two part time contractors (one within SAF/AQ and one (matrixed) at AFRL). Significant additional support was added in FY14 with a full time government civilian in the summer of In addition to these direct-supporting resources, the AF CCPE has access to several additional resources. The Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO), a geographically separated unit of the Air Force Research Laboratory, located at Robins AFB, GA, has been in operation for more than four decades. It provides foundational expertise and continuity to field maintenance and engineering activities throughout the Air Force corrosion enterprise, and serves as a primary resource for the AF CCPE. The AFCPCO provides services including maintaining several corrosion-specific technical orders and other publications, participating in weapon system Corrosion Prevention Advisory Boards (CPABs), leading corrosion technical and corporate activity exchange meetings, conducting technology assessments and field studies, and performing mandatory MAJCOM corrosion surveys. While the AFCPCO focuses primarily on fielded systems, the Air Force Research Laboratory conducts relevant corrosion science and technology across all phases of the system life cycle. Significant programs within the Materials and Manufacturing (AFRL/RX) and other Directorates continue to provide essential new materials, tools and techniques for minimizing corrosion to current and future Air Force systems. AFRL regularly engaged with the acquisition and sustainment communities to ensure they apply S&T resources to RDT&E efforts most relevant to the Air Logistics Complexes and Major Commands. Aligned under Air Force Materiel Command, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (LCMC) provides resources for system life cycle management activities. AFLCMC system program offices (SPOs) support Program Executive Officers (PEOs) and Program Managers (PMs) in leading overall system acquisition and sustainment efforts for their respective weapon systems. The major repair and overhaul (MRO) capability that supports system sustainment is within the Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC), which is geographically dispersed among three Air Logistics Complexes (ALCs). AFLCMC and AFSC work together and in concert with the MAJCOMs to establish sustainment budgets, overhaul schedules, and priorities. Page 5

7 Figure 3. AF top-level structure and CPC Working Group representation. Facility and infrastructure-related corrosion issues are managed by the AF Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) that was recently realigned from AF/A4 (formerly AF/A4/A7) to the AF Installations and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) that is a provisional headquarters with initial operational capability (IOC) anticipated by end of March The operational MAJCOMs are charged with equipping and training forces to fly and fight. As part of that mission, each MAJCOM assigns at least one corrosion manager to oversee corrosion-specific activities. These activities include development of MAJCOM corrosion guidance, managing career fields engaged in corrosion activities, reviewing system-specific technical data, determining career field training requirements, collaborating with other stakeholders in the Air Force corrosion enterprise, and much more. Major organizations engaged in the Air Force CPC activities are: Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Mobility Command (AMC) Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Page 6

8 Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) Air Force Space Command (AF- SPC) United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Air National Guard (ANG) The Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE) at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) plays a unique role in performing both research and educational activities. CAStLE provides Science and Technology (S&T) solutions to address operational structural sustainment and material degradation challenges. All CAStLE research projects provide educational opportunities in material degradation research for cadets. The AF CCPE (and support staff), AFCEC, AFRL, AFLCMC, AFSC, AFNWC, CAStLE, and MAJCOM corrosion managers constitute the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Working Group (AF CPCWG) and support the strategy and initiatives of the DoD CPO. By coordinating with the CPO and the CCPEs of the other military departments, the Air Force leverages policies, best practices, and supporting tools across the DoD to provide the wide-ranging and unified approach to corrosion envisioned by Congress. 3.0 AIR FORCE CPC PROGRAM MISSION, VISION, AND GOALS As stated in the 2014 Air Force Enterprise CPC Strategic Plan, the mission of the CPC Pro- Program is to Develop, promote, and implement cost effective solutions to prevent, predict, detect and manage corrosion for Air Force equipment and infrastructure, in coordination with the overarching DoD corrosion prevention and control program. The vision of the CPC Program is An integrated, effective Enterprise-wide Air Force corrosion prevention and control program that delivers reduced costs, increased system availability, and enhanced safety, across the life cycle of current and future Air Force equipment and infrastructure. CPC PROGRAM Mission: prevent, predict, detect & manage corrosion Vision: integrated CPC program that delivers reduced costs, increased system availability, & enhanced safety - Goal 1: cost, availability, & safety - Goal 2: guidance - Goal 3: communication - Goal 4: metrics - Goal 5: high ROI R&D investments - Goal 6: specs & standards - Goal 7: CPC competency The AF CPC Program has seven goals focused on the CPC Program mission and vision: Page 7

9 Goal 1: Implement an integrated approach to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion as key drivers of life cycle cost, availability, and safety. Goal 2: Publish effective corrosion prevention and mitigation guidance to ensure all elements of the AF understand their role in reducing the negative impacts of corrosion. Goal 3: Achieve clear communication of corrosion issues, impacts, mitigation approaches, lessons learned, and new techniques across all AF organizations. Goal 4: Use improved metrics to establish priorities for concentrating prevention and mitigation efforts, and to measure progress toward achievement of those priorities. Goal 5: Develop high return on investment solutions through research and development (R&D) to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion, from research through implementation, through internal efforts and in collaboration with other DoD components and academic institutions. Goal 6: Implement appropriate specifications, standards, and other requirements to propagate common materials and processes, and collaborate with other DoD components to implement a streamlined product introduction process for suppliers of new corrosion prevention products. Goal 7: Ensure a technically competent workforce in corrosion prevention and control so that individuals have the technical competency to carry out their role(s) within the AF corrosion prevention and control enterprise. This report will document progress in each of these goal areas CPC PROGRAM HIGH- LIGHTS 4.1 CPC Strategic Plan In August 2014, the Air Force published and distributed a new Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) Strategic Plan. The reasons for updating the plan were threefold. First, the 2012 plan s design set the foundation for an enduring Air Force enterprise corrosion prevention and control program. It successfully covered the essentials of the AF corrosion control and prevention effort, but an update was in order. Second and more importantly, the 2012 plan did not convey a complete strategic vision for all elements of the AF corrosion enterprise. Finally, the AF CPC sought compliance with the new reporting requirements contained in Section 334 of Public Law The new law was driven by the findings of a 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit Figure 4. The 2014 AF CPC Strategic Plan aligns with DoD guidance. Page 8

10 The AF CPC Strategic Plan responds to section 334 of Public Law by aligning the AF CPC Strategic Plan with the DoD Strategic Plan for Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation. Metrics USAF CPC Program R&D Specs/STDs Communication Guidance Skilled Workforce Prevent, Predict, Detect, & Manage Figure 5 AF CPC Program Foundation and Pillars. (report number GAO ) 5 that found the 2012 Strategic Plan to be only partially consistent with the DoD-level CPC Plan. The audit found similar deficiencies across the military departments. The revised AF CPC Strategic Plan supports and aligns with the DoD CPC Plan. It applies to all physical assets of the Air Force including weapons systems, munitions, vehicles, equipment, facilities, and other infrastructure. Its CPC-specific vision applies to all elements of the enterprise, with execution in accordance with specific guidance provided by the appropriate chains of command. The new plan was developed through an iterative, consultative process, incorporating relevant points from the May 2012 plan and inputs from the crossenterprise membership of the Air Force CPC Working Group. The linkage between the AF and DoD strategic plans is illustrated in Appendix A. The overarching intent of the strategic plan is increase Air Force efficiency in mitigating corrosion by reducing corrosion maintenance costs, improving system and personnel safety, and increasing system availability. To achieve these goals, the CPC Strategic Plan starts with solid, layered foundations: 1) an integrated approach to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion; 2) sound CPC guidance; and 3) clear communication. This foundation supports four essential pillars: 1) metrics; 2) R&D to develop high return on investment solutions; 3) operative specifications and standards; and 4) a technically competent workforce. The foundations and pillars of the AF CPC Strategic Plan are represented in Figure 5. 5 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2013). Additional Information Needed to Improve Military Departments Strategies for Corrosion Prevention and Control (GAO ). Washington, DC: GAO Page 9

11 4.2 Cost of Corrosion Study: Bending the Cost Curve To properly understand and address DoD corrosion prevention and control needs, the OSD Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight (CPO) has funded studies to detail the magnitude and characteristics of corrosion challenges across the military services, and supports development of CPC strategies. In October 2014, the OSD/CPO released draft results of its third study of The Estimated Effect of Corrosion on the Cost and Availability of Air Force Aircraft and Missiles. Initial reviews of the draft show positive trends. It seems to indicate that the synergistic effect of DoD, AF, program office, and depot and field level efforts appear to be paying off by slowing the growth of corrosion Total Corrosion Cost ($B) FY06 Corrosion Costs and % of Maintenance Costs costs relative to the total cost of maintenance. Positive trends in overall costs may be partially attributed to changes in environmental factors, such as reduced Middle East deployments or lower flying hours. However, the fact that the corrosion fraction of total maintenance is decreasing points toward another factor improved corrosion maintenance practices. We argue that the bending of the corrosion cost curve is, at least partially, due to increased awareness through our AF CPC enterprise level efforts. These efforts have improved corrosion awareness, planning, maintenance procedures, and technology and material selection processes, and are beginning to bend the corrosion cost curve. Obviously, some corrosion will remain a cost of maintenance and will never reach zero. However, we believe the current trends indicate progress and illustrate that momentum is on our side. 4.3 Reestablishing Key Standards Air Force representatives from across the enterprise worked in concert with joint service subject matter experts on the DoD-sponsored Specifications, Standards, and Qualification Processes (SSQP) Working Integrated Product Team (WIPT) to reestablish important standards for CPC. The WIPT successfully engaged the Defense Standardization Council and received approval to reinstate MIL-STD-1568, Materials and Processes for Corrosion Prevention and Control in Aerospace Weapon Systems. To build on the momentum of the reinstatement, the AF is currently facilitating a joint service technical effort to update the standard with the latest practices and requirements. Prior to this, the AFRL led an internal Air Force effort to establish technical preferences for an updated MIL-STD This draft Air Force revision forms the basis for the joint service update. FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Corrosion MX Cost ($B) Corrosion % Total MX cost FY13 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Corrosion % of MX Figure 6. Annual corrosion costs and corrosion percent of maintenance costs. Page 10

12 Another primary activity was a jointservice effort to reestablish a standard for electronics corrosion. The WIPT gained the approval of the Defense Standardization Council to work with a non-governmental standards body to establish such a standard. The Defense Standardization Executive selected the Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE) as the standards organization. SAE agreed to develop and publish a standard for avionics and electronics with assistance from the appropriate DoD stakeholders. The Air Force is an active member of the new SAE committee to develop the standard. 5.0 FUNCTIONAL HIGHLIGHTS The functional activities and achievements presented here are organized into four categories: 1) the functions of the AF CCPE; 2) enterprise corrosion enablers; 3) MAJCOMs and ANG; and 4) weapons systems. This section contains highlights; details are included in the appendices. 5.1 CCPE Highlights Figure 7. MIL-STD-1568 was reinstated in August The AF CCPE published a new Air Force Corrosion Strategic Plan in August The plan contains significantly changed goals and objectives that clearly align with the DoD Corrosion Strategy and establish a pragmatic, long-term vision for the Air Force corrosion enterprise. It also includes actionable metrics and realistic performance measures that will enable improved management of the Air Force Corrosion Program and simplify compliance with public law. After publishing the new CPC Strategic Plan, the AF CCPE led an effort to estimate resources necessary to enact the plan. The CCPE-specific results of this analysis are included in Section 6, CCPE Resource Requirements. Continuing the thrust toward effective communication throughout the AF corrosion enterprise, the CCPE led four meetings of the AF Corrosion Prevention and Control Working Group (CPCWG) in The meetings included participation by members from numerous AF organizations concerned with corrosion, including guest speakers from OSD and the Air Force Audit Agency. The CPCWG served as a forum for increasing awareness, collaborating toward resolution of pervasive corrosion issues, and assessing the health of the corrosion enterprise. In addition to fostering collaboration within the Air Force, the AF CCPE increased support to the OSD/CPO, ensuring active Air Force participation in each of the OSD Corrosion Working IPTs (WIPT) and OSD Technology Corrosion Collaboration (TCC). Most significantly, the AF CCPE paid close attention to joint service activities to reinstate or update corrosion-based speci- Page 11

13 fications and standards via the Specifications, Standards, Qualification, and Process (SSQP) WIPT; fostered AFRL leadership roles in Science and Technology (S&T) WIPT subgroups; and remained focused on shaping DoD corrosion policies via the Corrosion Policy, Procedures, Processes and Oversight (C3PO) WIPT. In addition to WIPT activities, the CCPE ensured continuing, effective Air Force support to the TCC. As a member of the TCC, the Air Force provided global corrosion challenges to TCC member universities, and sponsored select university proposals for TCC projects that complimented Air Force corrosion research goals. The Air Force revised several guidance documents in 2014 to improve CPC management. SAF/AQX made an interim change to AFI /20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management, that clarified coordination and scheduling requirements for CPC Plans during system acquisitions. AF/A4L changed AFI , Air and Space Equipment Structural Management, to provide direction for coordinating corrosion surveys, requiring MAJCOMs to provide inspection findings to the Air Force Materiel Command corrosion activity. Additional details of these and other CCPE-led activities are included in Appendix B. 5.2 CPC Enterprise Enabler Highlights While the CCPE provides high-level policy and guidance for corrosion management, the success of the AF corrosion enterprise depends on the expert knowledge and skills of several CPC enablers, including: the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP); Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL); the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO); the US Air Force Academy Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE); and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). These enablers support multiple programs and often serve multiple purposes, including engineering leadership, field and depot maintenance technical consultation, and research and development. The ASIP community has emphasized CPC as a special interest item since 2012, and continued this focus in MIL-STD-1530C, General Guidelines for Aircraft Structural Integrity Program, requires several corrosion-centric activities, including Corrosion Prevention Advisory Boards, a Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan, and continuous corrosion assessments. Because of ASIP emphasis, 81% of Air Force applicable weapons systems have a CPC Plan (compared to 70% in 2012), and 58% held a CPAB meeting in the past year (compared to 22% in 2012). The Air Force Research Laboratory was especially active in CPC in The AFRL Corrosion IPT drafted a full revision of MIL-STD-1568, Material and Processes for Corrosion Prevention and Control in Aerospace Weapons Systems, and is facilitating a joint service team to complete the revision in early AFRL emerged as the government customer leader in the OSD Technology Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) by posing technical corrosion challenges to universities, and supporting several university proposals for TCC-funded corrosion projects. It also increased membership in the OSD Corrosion IPT, and assumed leadership roles in nochrome coating and accelerated testing subgroups. AFRL made significant contributions to corrosion modeling that resulted in the replacement of a corrosion-prone bushing for the MQ-9 Reaper, while it is still in production. Additional activities included significant contributions to the understanding of bio-corrosion, hydrogen re-embrittlement, accelerated corrosion test methods, and non-chrome corrosion inhibiting materials. Page 12

14 The Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO), a geographically separated component of the AFRL, helped improve depot and field-level maintenance by conducting corrosion surveys of the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) and Air Combat Command, and by participating in numerous weapon system Corrosion Prevention Advisory Boards (CPABs). As the Air Force central source of corrosion information, the AFCPCO updated several general series technical orders, including 1-1-8, , , , and These documents form the foundation for all corrosion-specific technical guidance across the Air Force. The AFCPCO also provided corrosion subject matter experts for corrosion research and provided technical assistance for AF corrosion control facility construction and upgrades. CAStLE, part of the Department of Engineering Mechanics at the USAF Academy, contributed to corrosion-related research and development. Air Force Academy cadets completed the development and fabrication of a test cell and control system, developed new test protocols and corrosion response data sets to support environmental test chamber development. In addition, CAStLE implemented a unique test chamber that can simultaneously apply mechanical and environmental stress to multiple test specimens up to a size of 6 X 24 inches. CAStLE also created a corrosion curriculum with all presentation materials, covering corrosion damage mechanisms and emphasizing effects on structural integrity. The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) updated AFI , Corrosion Control, to provide current guidance on cathodic protection, protective coatings, and industrial water treatment for facilities and infrastructure and helped update Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) , Cathodic Protection, while working as part of a Tri-Service Electrical Discipline Working Group (DWG). In addition, AFCEC conducted multiple facilities and infrastructure corrosion surveys. Details of these and other CPC Enterprise Enabler activities are included in Appendix C. 5.3 Major Command and ANG Highlights In 2014, the MAJCOMs revised or introduced numerous MAJCOM instructions and other guidance documents to improve corrosion prevention and control. Several commands continued the practice of holding quarterly Corrosion Control Working Group meetings to coordinate corrosion issues within their areas of responsibility. Some of the more significant CPC initiatives reported by the MAJCOMs include: changes in wash cycle requirements for aircraft in severely corrosive environments; increased Analytical Condition Inspections (ACIs) to assess the efficacy of previous corrosion mitigation actions; improved non-destructive identification (NDI) techniques; participation in Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board (CPAB) meetings; and creating environments where training, innovation, and proactivity help mitigate the effects of corrosion at depot and field level. Details of these and other MAJCOM corrosion activities are included in Appendix D. 5.4 Weapon System Highlights Weapon system-specific highlights in 2014 include: Page 13

15 Implementing new Corrosion Inhibiting Compound (CICs) on B-52, C-5, C-17, and C- 130 aircraft; Upgrading personnel safety and hazardous waste reduction by improved housekeeping; Replacing chromium with less hazardous corrosion-inhibiting materials such as chromefree surface preparation chemicals, magnesium-rich and zinc-rich primers, and chromefree topcoats; Applying new gaskets, seals, composite barriers, and fittings to reduce galvanic corrosion; Adding drain holes to prevent water pooling; Selectively using polysulfide primer in C-130 corrosion prone areas; Utilizing in situ corrosion sensors on F-35 and HH-60 aircraft to help correlate environmental conditions and wash cycle data with aircraft corrosion. Details of reported weapons systems corrosion activities are included in Appendix F. 6.0 CCPE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS Title 10, US Code, Section 2228, Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, requires the CCPE from each military department to submit an annual report to OSD containing recommendations for corrosion-related funding levels necessary to carry out CCPE duties. In order to generate a thorough, compliant response, the AF CCPE assembled a cross-functional team to develop an estimate of the resources necessary to implement the new AF CPC Strategic Plan, including CCPE resource requirements. The recommendations presented in this section are products of that exercise. A detailed breakdown of CCPE tasks and estimated resources appears in Appendix G. In summary, CCPE roles in implementing the CPC Strategic Plan fell into two categories: 1) engagement support to meet the legally mandated CCPE functions, and 2) helping transition new technologies and improved corrosion prevention practices and tools to the field. In both cases, the modest resources that are required enable much greater savings in resources elsewhere. Corrosion is a significant contributor to life cycle sustainment costs for AF systems. The most recent corrosion cost assessment, funded by OSD, found that corrosion drove about $6B in annual maintenance costs and about 15% of all aircraft non-availability hours in The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force issued the Air Force 30-year Strategy in July 2014, which states we must keep an eye toward the challenge of gaining and maintaining sufficient readiness across all of our mission sets in minimum time. Equally important, we must seek to drive down costs. 6 The AF CPC Strategic Plan, and the CCPE roles in executing the plan, support the readiness and cost goals stated in the Air Force 30-year Strategy. Well-executed CPC efforts can yield real results. For example, the C-130 Program Office initiated a focused CPC pilot program in 2009 to reduce the cost of corrective corrosion maintenance. Since then, corrosion corrective maintenance costs have fallen 23% (from $257M in FY10 to $197M in FY13) a reduction of $60M per year. Corrosion preventive maintenance costs held steady while corrosion corrective maintenance costs went down. 6 Hon D. L. James and Gen M. A. Welsh. (2014). America s Air Force: A Call to the Future. Pentagon, Washington, DC: USAF Page 14

16 Potential benefits of providing AF corrosion-specific funding include: Reduced O&M costs Increased safety Increased system availability Reduced demand on maintenance personnel Engagement Support Funds. The recommended OSD funding for AF CCPE support to DoD and AF CPC Strategic Plan goals is $954k in operations and maintenance (O&M) funding. A breakdown of recommended AF CCPE funds (by activity) is shown in Table 1. Technology Development and Insertion Funds. Also shown in Table 1, the recommended funding level for corrosion-related Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) is $1,969k in 3600 funds. (i.e., AF CPC Strategic Plan Goal 5). In this discussion of corrosion R&D activities, it is important to note the OSD CPO Office s technology demonstration program is a primary source of CPC funding for technology transition. However, USAF proposals for OSD corrosion project funding historically underperform competition from the other military services, primarily due to a lack of Air Force matching funds. This is significant because a recent GAO audit estimated that OSD/CPO funded corrosion projects averaged 10:1 return on investment. 7 The implication is clear - the AF could save millions in long-term O&M costs with additional funding. Table 1. AF CCPE First Year Funding Recommendations. CPC Program Function Engagement Support (O&M): Recommended Funding ($k) Reporting, Coord AF Activities, Info Exchange 343 AF Corrosion Metrics and Impact Analysis 217 Policy & guidance engagement (w/osd, AF orgs, other) 172 Integrated CPC Approach (CPABs, Integrity Pgms) 135 Specs and Standards Development 66 Workforce training requirements 21 Technology Development and Insertion (RDT&E): CPC Technology Transition Projects 1800 Participate in and leverage R&D activities 169 TOTAL $2,923 7 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2010). DoD Has a Rigorous Process to Select Corrosion Prevention Projects, but Would Benefit from Clearer Guidance and Validation of Returns on Investment (GAO-11-84). Washington, DC: GAO Page 15

17 7.0 GOALS AND METRICS This section provides status of the seven AF corrosion goals summarized by the associated metrics and performance measures from the AF CPC Strategic Plan. Metrics can be strategic or programmatic as annotated by an S or a P, respectively. The four strategic level metrics are S.1 Annual maintenance costs due to corrosion S.2 Annual system nonavailability due to corrosion S.3 Annual safety incidents / failure reports citing corrosion as a factor S.4 Increases/decreases in cost, availability, and safety over time. Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 show all four of these metrics, which display the cost, nonavailability, and safety impacts of corrosion over time. Corrosion maintenance costs have leveled off for the past two years and the corrosion share of maintenance, reported in a percent of maintenance actually decreased in FY13. Figure 9 shows that the non-available hours (NAH) due to corrosion has decreased since highs in FY08 and FY09 both in terms of hours of NAH and the portion of NAH due to corrosion as reported as a percentage of total NAH. Figure 10 shows trends for Class A, Class B, and Class C safety mishaps from where corrosion either caused or was a factor in the mishap. As expected, a higher mishap rate occurred during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It also appears that this data is on a positive trend, but this data should be normalized by flight hours to obtain a more clear pictures. Logic dictates that more flying hours will result in more safety mishaps. The data for these charts came from the ongoing OSD-CPO funded studies on the estimated Total Corrosion Cost ($B) $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Figure 8. Cost of corrosion and corrosion share of maintenance. Corrosion NAH (Millions of Hrs) S.1 and S.4: Annual Corrosion Cost & % of Maintenance Total Corrosion Cost ($B) Corrosion portion of MX (%) S.2 and S.4: Annual Corrosion NAH Hrs & % of Total NAH FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 NAH Due to Corrosion (Millions of hr) Corrosion % of MX 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% Corrosion portion of Total NAH (%) Figure 9. Aircraft and missile NAH and corrosion share of NAH. Corrosoin NAH % of Total NAH Page 16

18 effect of corrosion on cost and non-availability and from an AF study completed in 2013 on the effect of corrosion on safety. 8,9 Combined CPC efforts appear to be paying off as illustrated by the bending of the corrosion cost 40 curve data from FY10-FY13. This metric shows that corrosion costs are plateauing and corrosion 20 maintenance hours, as a percent of total maintenance, actually decreased slightly from FY12 to 0 FY13. Environmental conditions, such as reduced Middle East deployments could affect the cost curve. However, the fact that the Class A Class B Class C corrosion maintenance fraction of total maintenance is decreasing Figure 10. Class A, B, and C safety mishap trends. in Figure 8 indicates the in- volvement of another factor improved maintenance practices. We argue that the bending of the curves is, at least partially, due to increased CPC awareness resulting from an enterprise-wide focus. Number of Mishaps 60 S.3 and S.4: Corrosion "Caused" or "Factored" in Class A, B, & C Mishaps The CPC enterprise focus has improved awareness of CPC issues across the AF and includes activities like our AF CPC working group, CCPE annual reports, revised strategic plan, and other means. This has helped to catalyze field-level and depot-level CPC actions. Consequently, the AF could continue its current, modest support to CPC and hope to maintain recent trends. However, adding resources (such as manpower, R&D funds, etc.) now could increase positive momentum and achieve further cost reduction. Table 2 contains the programmatic metrics associated with each goal. The majority of these metrics are activity-level metrics and do not fully encompass all aspects of the desired outcomes for the goal. The programmatic metrics are meant to provide an indication on some important activity associated with the goal and not be overly burdensome to gather. The strategic metrics already discussed provide the ultimate outcome-oriented metrics for the overall enterprise. The discussion following Table 2 gives a summary of progress toward each goal. The programmatic metrics for this year will provide the baseline to assess future year trends. 8 Herzberg, E. F., Baty, R., Chan, T. K., and O Meara, N.T. (2014). The Estimated Effect of Corrosion on the Cost and Availability of Air Force Aircraft and Missiles. McLean, VA: LMI 9 Perazzola, C. (2013). The Role of Corrosion in Safety Mishaps. Robins AFB, GA: Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office Page 17

19 Table 2. Summary of Metrics. Metric Results Goal #1 Integrated Approach: Implement an integrated approach to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion as key drivers of life cycle cost, availability, and safety. P.1.1 Annual number of major acquisition programs that reported conducting CPC planning activities or documenting them in acquisition documents 22 P.1.2 Annual number of sustainment programs that reported conducting CPAB reviews 11 Goal #2 Guidance: Publish effective corrosion prevention and mitigation guidance to ensure all elements of the AF understand their role in reducing the negative impacts of corrosion. P.2.1 Annual number of DoD-level Corrosion Policy, Processes, Procedures and Oversight (C3PO) WIPT meetings and workshops with AF participation P.2.2 Number of MAJCOM or AF-level guidance documents reviewed or updated to ensure corrosion functional area responsibilities are clearly addressed Goal #3 Communications: Achieve clear communication of corrosion issues, impacts, mitigation approaches, lessons learned, and new techniques across all AF organizations. P.3.1. Annual number of AF CPCWG meetings conducted 4 P.3.2. Number of hits on the AF CPCO website Unknown Goal #4 Metrics: Use improved metrics to establish priorities for concentrating prevention and mitigation efforts, and to measure progress toward achievement of those priorities. P.4. Number of complete (or in progress) ROI assessments[1] 4 Goal #5 R&D: Develop high return on investment solutions through research and development (R&D) to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion, from research through implementation, through internal efforts and in collaboration with other DoD components and academic institutions. P.5.1. Number of active corrosion-related R&D projects 49 P.5.2. Number of new corrosion-related materials, processes, tools and other technologies reported as being implemented in the given year. 11 Page 18

20 Goal #6 Specs/Stds: Implement appropriate specifications, standards, and other requirements to propagate common materials and processes, and collaborate with other DoD components to implement a streamlined product introduction process for suppliers of new corrosion prevention products. P.6.1. Number of DoD-level Specifications, Standards, and Qualification Processes WIPT meetings and workshops with AF participation. P.6.2. Pounds of products containing hexavalent chromium issued to AF activities as tracked by the Enterprise Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Management Information System (EESOH-MIS) 4 61,412 Goal #7 Competent Workforce: Ensure a technically competent workforce in corrosion prevention and control so that individuals have the technical competency to carry out their role(s) within the AF corrosion prevention and control enterprise. P.7. Number of CPC-related assessments conducted via AF Inspection System (AFIS) and AFCPCO surveys 2 Goal #1, Integrated approach, has two metrics associated with CPC planning and corrosion prevention advisory boards (CPABs). An effective CPC program integrates multiple actions across the life cycle from good materials selection and engineering, to management and maintenance of the fielded asset, and insertion of improved processes as they become available. This requires planning, expertise, and communication. The CPC planning metric shows good progress. This is confirmed by information the AF CCPE has found while participating in the annual Aircraft Structural Integrity Program reviews. The number of CPABs conducted in 2014 continues to be impacted by government travel restrictions or in some cases were locally categorized as a conference, which further restricted a weapon system program s ability to conduct a CPAB. Programs used video teleconference (VTC) in many cases. A positive aspect is an increasing number of programs are aware of the benefit of bringing engineers and maintainers together in a CPAB to discuss corrosion issues. Goal #2, Guidance, is difficult to measure as to its effectiveness. Active engagement in efforts to improve policy and guidance is an indicator and more easily measured. Therefore, this goal has metrics on participation in working-level integrated process team (WIPT) meetings devoted to such, and the number of guidance documents reviewed. The AF had significant activity in these areas in The AF CCPE was actively engaged in the DoD corrosion policy, processes, procedures, and oversight (C3PO) WIPT. The number of guidance documents reviewed includes those reviewed by the CCPE, CPC Enablers, and MAJCOMs. Documents included in this metric include instructions, guidebooks, MIL-STDS, MIL-HDBKs, Uniform Facility Codes (UFCs), Air Force Instructions (AFIs), and Data Item Descriptions (DIDs). Goal #3, Communications, occurs through many avenues throughout the enterprise. The metrics chosen are only two avenues of communication. The number of AFCPC Working Group meetings indicates communication between key organizations and personnel who are closely in- Page 19

21 volved in CPC from an enterprise perspective. Quarterly meetings are the objective, to keep the information flowing among these organizations. The number of hits on the AFCPCO website indicates technical information flow to maintainers and engineers on questions of specific materials and processes. The AFCPCO configures their website specifically to meet this need. Due to a change in the AF portal template for organizational websites, we could not measure this metric in We will reassess the use of this metric in 2015 if the new AF portal constraints cannot accommodate the measurement. Beyond the specified metrics in Table 2, the extensive communication activities of the various organizations throughout the enterprise are detailed in Appendices B through E. Goal #4, Metrics, is a goal that enables all the other goals and provides a means to assess the health of the overall CPC enterprise. Progress in this goal is the level of success in gathering the strategic and programmatic metrics and the usefulness of those metrics. The strategic metrics previously discussed are clear, measurable, and provide ideal long-term outcome oriented metrics. For the most part, the programmatic metrics were measurable and provided a means to assess some of the activity level within the enterprise. Overall, we were able to gather the metrics with an acceptable amount of additional effort. There was a single return on investment (ROI) reassessment completed in 2014 and 3 others in work. These re-assessments are required on OSDfunded projects two years after project completion. Goal #5, R&D, has two programmatic metrics to measure the level of research activity and the level of implementation of new materials and processes. These metrics are directly related to the purpose of the goal. The number of corrosion-related R&D projects and involvement by AF organizations in such activities has grown substantially in the previous two years. AFRL reestablished a research program in corrosion and other organizations increased their participation. Pending available funding, we expect to see these metrics increase in the coming years. Goal #6, Specifications and Standards, has some overlap with Goal #2 because specifications and standards provide technical guidance to elements of the enterprise that apply and make technical decisions on materials and processes for application on systems and infrastructure. Therefore, the metric in Goal #2 on the number of documents reviewed or updated includes specifications and standards. The additional programmatic metrics for Goal #6 measure the level of AF participation in the DoD Specifications, Standards, and Qualification Processes (SSQP) WIPT and measure the implementation success in one important technical area on specifications. The AF substantially increased its involvement with the SSQP WIPT in 2014 to assist with the efforts to reestablish key standards as discussed earlier. For the other metric, we expect to see reductions in future years due to the implementation of specifications to qualify new products that have high corrosion resistance performance without containing hexavalent chromium, which is a human carcinogen. The number from this year will provide a baseline to assess progress. Goal #7, Competent Workforce, is a very important long-term goal. It underpins the effectiveness of the entire CPC enterprise. We use the indirect metric of the number of corrosionrelated assessments, inspections, and surveys as the programmatic metric for this goal. This metric shows the level of activity underway to assess the technical competency of a unit (inspections) and provide on-site assistance or training (surveys). The AFCPCO completed two MAJCOM corrosion surveys in 2014, which meets the average required for the five-year cycle in AFI To achieve future progress on this goal, in the coming year, we will assess the quality of training for our CPC workforce. An AF team has begun the process to assess training Page 20

22 needs, analyze current training resources, determine gaps between needs and resources, and develop a strategy to address any training gaps. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AF CPC PROGRAM The AF CCPE solicited improvement recommendations from across the AF CPC enterprise regarding the overall Air Force CPC program. Most of the recommendations were variations on common themes and can be condensed into the following overarching recommendations. Establish a Program Office with responsibility and funding to develop, test, transition, and insert technical solutions (materials, processes, and tools) for improved CPC and other O&M needs. Improve the communication, sharing of lessons learned, and training for CPC. Examples include a quarterly AFCPCO newsletter, face-to-face meetings for the AFCPC Working Group, and hosting more corrosion training (engineer and technician) at Air Force schoolhouses. Restore and increase funding for CPC maintenance in order to produce long-term positive return on investment. Near term budget constraints have worsened the situation of inadequate funding for CPC maintenance (especially for ground support equipment and facilities). Analyze deficiency reports, cost data, and other information sources and then provide feedback to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and government depots to improve manufacturing floor quality, processes and materials. The comprehensive list of recommendations is included in Appendix G. A brief report regarding the AF CCPE response to recommendations from the FY13 report is appropriate. Last year, the entire spectrum of recommendations was boiled down to four highlevel recommendations. Those high-level recommendations and the AF CCPE report relative to those recommendations follows: 1) Convene special Corrosion Prevention Advisory Boards (CPABs) when aircraft are deployed to severe environments. Response: One F-16 Wing, the 301 st FW implemented a practice of washing and inspecting aircraft for corrosion upon return from forward operating locations. This proactive effort will undoubtedly have positive CPC effects. 2) Reestablish Military Standards for approved, qualified, and contractually enforceable materials and processes for new and legacy systems. Response: Results relative to this recommendation are a major accomplishment of this year s AF CPC enterprise. A yearlong effort resulted in reinstating MIL-STD-1568, Materials and Processes for Corrosion Prevention and Control in Aerospace Weapons System, and a dedicated joint team is currently engaged in updating the standard to make it current with the latest practices and requirements. In addition, SAE International has agreed to publish a non-governmental standard on CPC of avionics and electronics with assistance from AF and DoD stakeholders. A new SAE standards committee to accomplish the task is in the formative stage. 3) Improve communication throughout the corrosion enterprise, especially for policy guidance and material/process changes. Response: While activities like our AF CPC working group, CCPE annual reports, and revised strategic plan have improved communication and CPC Page 21

23 awareness, there is still room for improvement. The focused application of additional resources such as those mentioned in section 6.0 could help sustain the current positive trend in the cost curve and possibly increase momentum to produce even greater corrosion benefits. 4) Reinvigorate corrosion subject matter expertise across the Air Force CPC enterprise by reestablishing SNCO billets in the AFCPCO, assigning a full-time corrosion SME for facilities and infrastructure, and updating role-based training requirements. Response: The CPC enterprise has benefited from the assignment of a full-time SME for facilities and infrastructure. AFCEC and the AF CCPE recently tasked a CPC Training Integrated Product Team to look at corrosion training and make recommendations. The IPT will determine the roles of various stakeholders in the CPC enterprise; determine the desired knowledge, skills, and abilities of each role; assess currently available training; provide a gap analysis to determine which training resources are sufficient and with training gaps need to be filled; and develop an implementation plan to fill the gaps. 9.0 CONCLUSION The Air Force made significant progress in addressing corrosion in Increased corrosion awareness from Enterprise-level leadership and expert direction and process changes from Air Force Major Commands, weapon system program offices, maintainers, and facilities managers is paying off. In 2014, the expected rise in corrosion maintenance costs slowed and even began to hint at a bending of the cost curve. This year, the AF CCPE released a new Air Force Corrosion Strategic Plan, worked with sister military colleagues to reestablish key standards for CPC, and continued to raise awareness of CPC issues through various means. AFMC and AFRL actively worked toward reducing the use of cadmium and chromium in our weapon systems. AFRL continued to increase emphasis on corrosion-related research in its pending S&T Sustainment Strategy and conducted numerous corrosion-related R&D activities. ASIP, one of the Air Force s foundational operating philosophies and activities, took special interest in corrosion in its annual weapon system survey. The Air Force increased its participation in OSD TCC, including multiple internships for member students and clarification regarding how members can partner with the Air Force. This juncture may be the time to apply the additional resources outlined in this report to exploit this momentum to drive down CPC costs. Page 22

24 APPENDIX A - LINKAGE BETWEEN AF AND DOD CPC STRATEGIES DoD Goals, Objectives, and Strategies with linkage to AF CPC Strategic Plan Goals AF Goal 1: integrated approach to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion AF Goal 2: effective guidance AF Goal 3: clear communication AF Goal 4: metrics establish priorities measure progress AF Goal 5: high ROI R&D investments in collaboration with DoD and academic institutions. AF Goal 6: specs & standards propagate common materials and processes AF Goal 7: technically competent workforce Page A-1

25 AF Enterprise CPC Strategic Plan APPENDIX B CCPE-LED ENGAGEMENT The primary activity for the CCPE in 2014 was developing and publishing the AF Enterprise CPC Strategic Plan. The CCPE previously published an interim plan in May A 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit (report number GAO ) found the 2012 AF CPC Strategic Plan to be fully or partially consistent with only 9 of 21 goals in the DoD-level CPC Plan. The GAO found similar deficiencies in other military department CPC plans. The findings drove new guidance in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law ), with requirements for the military departments to address the deficiencies in their CPC strategic plans. Specifically, the NDAA mandated alignment between the goals and objectives in military departments CPC Strategic Plans and those in the DoD-level CPC Strategic Plan, and inclusion of metrics and performance measures. The AF CPC Strategic Plan responds to section 334 of Public Law by aligning the AF CPC Strategic Plan with the DoD Strategic Plan for Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation. The Air Force published and distributed a new Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPC) Strategic Plan in August The new AF CPC Strategic Plan updated the strategic goals and objectives and added metrics and performance measures to address the requirements in Section 334 of Public Law The Air Force CCPE developed the Strategic Plan through a consultative process, starting with the 2012 Strategic Plan and receiving input from the cross-enterprise membership of the Air Force CPC Working Group. The linkage between the AF and DoD strategic plans is shown in Appendix B. CPC PROGRAM Mission: prevent, predict, detect & manage corrosion Vision: integrated CPC program that delivers reduced costs, increased system availability, & enhanced safety - Goal 1: cost, availability, & safety - Goal 2: guidance - Goal 3: communication - Goal 4: metrics - Goal 5: high ROI R&D investments - Goal 6: specs & standards - Goal 7: technically competent CPC workforce The goals of the strategic plan are to reduce the AF $6B annual expense related to mitigating corrosion by reducing corrosion maintenance costs, improve safety, and increase mission availability. To achieve these goals, the CPC Strategic Plan structure starts with solid, layered, foundations, including: 1) an integrated approach to prevent, predict, detect, and manage corrosion; 2) sound CPC guidance; and 3) clear communication. This foundation supports four essential pillars: 1) metrics; 2) using R&D to develop high return on investment solutions; 3) operative specifications, standards; and 4) a technically competent workforce. The foundations and pillars of the Page B-1