Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: "Aerospace industry"

    4 publications with a total of 8 open recommendations
    Director: Dillingham, Gerald L
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help FAA better manage and oversee its portfolio of R&D activities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA to take a more strategic approach to identifying research priorities across the agency, including developing guidance to identify long-term priorities and emerging issue areas, as part of FAA's portfolio development process.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, FAA officials said they were redesigning the agency?s National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) to, among other things, better align research to agency outcomes. FAA officials said that the redesigned NARP will provide the agency a strategic view of R&D and a better understanding of the driving forces for research, such as longer term strategic needs and emerging issues. The officials also said that the redesigned NARP will allow for a more effective framework from which to prioritize research. FAA plans to finalize the redesign of the NARP by February 2019.
    Recommendation: To help FAA better manage and oversee its portfolio of R&D activities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA to clarify its portfolio development guidance to call for each Program Planning Teams to disclose the process it used for prioritizing and selecting research projects so that decision-making is more transparent for FAA management.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, FAA officials said they were developing guidance that will require the Program Planning Teams to identify and document their process for prioritizing and selecting research projects. FAA plans to finalize the guidance by November 2017.
    Recommendation: To help FAA better manage and oversee its portfolio of R&D activities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA to develop guidance to ensure that future National Aviation Research Plans (NARP) and R&D Annual Reviews meet statutory requirements to the extent practicable, including (a) The NARP lists activities that are carried under cooperative agreements. (b) The NARP describes the rationale for the prioritized research programs. (c) The NARP identifies how resources were allocated for long-term and near-term research. (d) The NARP identifies REDAC recommendations that are accepted, not accepted, and the reasons for non-acceptance. (e) The NARP provides a detailed description of technology transfer to government, industry, and academia. (f) The Annual Review describes new technologies developed and the dissemination of research results to the private sector. (g) The Annual Review allows a comparison to the NARP. (h) The Annual Review is prepared and presented in accordance with agency performance reporting requirements.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, FAA officials said they were redesigning the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) and R&D Annual Review to include, among other things, information required by statute. FAA plans to finalize the redesign of the NARP and Annual Review by February 2019.
    Director: Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To respond to changes in the aviation and commercial space-transportation industries, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to fully examine and document whether the current regulatory framework is appropriate for aircraft that could be considered space support vehicles, and if not, suggest legislation or develop regulatory changes, or both, as applicable.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Marie A. Mak
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide greater compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement among the DOD components and their defense supplier-base, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should establish mechanisms for department-wide oversight of defense agencies' compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD stated that it will issue new DOD Instruction covering the use of GIDEP, as well as a companion DOD manual, to include identification of roles and responsibilities for submission of reports and oversight of such submission. Both documents are expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter fiscal year 2018.
    Recommendation: To provide greater compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement among the DOD components and their defense supplier-base, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should develop a standardized process for determining the level of evidence needed to report a part as suspect counterfeit in GIDEP, such as a tiered reporting structure in GIDEP that provides an indication of where the suspect part is in the process of being assessed.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD stated that it will issue new DOD Instruction covering the use of GIDEP, as well as a companion DOD manual, to include identification of roles and responsibilities for submission of reports and oversight of such submission. Both documents are expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2018.
    Recommendation: To provide greater compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement among the DOD components and their defense supplier-base, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should develop guidance for when access to GIDEP reports should be limited to only government users or made available to industry.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD stated that it will issue new DOD Instruction covering the use of GIDEP, as well as a companion DOD manual, to include identification of roles and responsibilities for submission of reports and oversight of such submission. Both documents are expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2018.
    Director: Chaplain, Cristina T
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To continue to ensure funded Space Act agreements are used and managed appropriately, the Administrator of NASA should direct the appropriate offices to update the agency's policies and guidance to incorporate controls for documenting, at a minimum, the agency's decision to use a funded Space Act agreement and its analysis supporting the determination that no other instrument is feasible, as well as the agency's assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the costs it is contributing to an effort conducted using a funded Space Act agreement.

    Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: NASA updated its acquisition policy directive (NPD 1000.5), which outlines its strategic acquisition planning process, in 2013. Although this document only obliquely refers to NASA's other transaction authority (of which funded Space Act agreements (SAAs) are a part), it does link the use of Space Act agreements to NASA's strategic acquisition planning process. Additionally, in August 2017 NASA issued a memo implementing interim guidance for new procedural requirements for Space Act agreements pursuant to Section 841 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2017. This guidance specifies the applicability of requirements to document decisions to use funded SAAs, including a specific determination that other instruments are not feasible, which meets the intent of part of this recommendation. However, guidance relating to NASA's assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the costs it is contributing under a funded SAA is forthcoming as an update to the Space Act Agreements Guide, expected in mid-September 2017. As such this recommendation will remain open until that document is updated.