Field / Intermediate Level Repair facilities and current corrosion repair practices are not always consistent—much of the work is conducted using “local” protocols which can diverge from each other.  Typical industrial specifications are not often employed to control aspects of surface preparation and coating application.  This can also contribute to potential inconsistencies among different repair facilities, potentially resulting in differing quality and performance of corrosion repair. Such differences might be resolved by regulating the process through additional quality assurance (QA) checks and writing extensive specification documents.  Incorporating additional QA checks and exhaustive specifications would add additional cost and time requirements to the repair process.  This paper will address the trade-off analysis between high levels of standardization and quality assurance with the repairs being made at field / intermediate level repair facilities versus that which occurs under general guidance.  This analysis will include observations made from in-service vehicles that have been field repaired, recognizing the likely product application control processes.  The paper will also address a review of material performance data from more standardized testing which are used to evaluate the benefits of different process practices.  The observations allow us to determine whether the additional specification and quality assurance practices have high value with respect to vehicle corrosion.   This will allow the maintenance specifications, practices and/or schedule to then be adjusted to reflect the optimal level of corrosion control.