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: "Budgetary resources"

    9 publications with a total of 22 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the quality of DOD's financial statement audits and ensure that corrective actions to address audit recommendations are fully and effectively implemented prior to their closure, the Department of Defense Inspector General should ensure that Marine Corps corrective actions fully address audit recommendations and document auditor review of the actions taken before closing the related recommendations.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: Our follow up in fiscal year 2015 was limited to a request for a documented process the DOD-IG may have developed and implemented to ensure all control issues detailed in the NFRs have been fully resolved; related corrective action plans were relevant and reviewed consistently and adequately; and the IPA/DOD-IG reviews were documented as part of the NFR review process. DOD-IG was not able to provide such documentation to support the statement provided in its response to our recommendation at the time the report was issued. Consequently, there was no documentation for us to review. In August 2017, we contacted the DOD-IG and requested an update on the status of efforts to address this recommendation. Also, per the contract with an IPA for the USMC's fiscal year 2017 financial statement audit, the IPA is to follow up on status of efforts to address prior year recommendations.
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should establish a requirement for collecting, tracking, and reporting data on the use of borrowed military personnel and provide guidance to ensure that data collected are complete and accurate; if other special duty data are included, ensure that the tool contains a method to distinguish borrowed military personnel from other special duty data.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should issue guidance that includes procedures for tracking the amount of time soldiers are used as borrowed military personnel.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should revise Army Regulation 570-4 to include guidance to senior commanders for approving the use of soldiers for positions or functions outside their occupational specialty on a rotational basis for an enduring period.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should establish oversight mechanisms that include directing commanders to maintain records for considering the full costs of borrowed military personnel when making decisions to use these personnel, and directing the Army to review these records and full costs reported by installations and commands to help ensure that these costs are considered, documented, and reported in a uniform manner.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Beryl H. Davis
    Phone: (202) 512-2623

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide increased performance audit coverage of Commerce's bureaus and offices, the Commerce IG should augment the OIG's risk-based audit planning process to consider (1) a rotation of performance audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices to help ensure that the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of their programs are periodically reviewed and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO.

    Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has taken actions to augment its annual risk assessment to consider (I) a rotation of performance audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO. For example, OIG's fiscal year (FY) 2016 audit plan included performance audits of Bureau of Industry and Security, Economic Development Administration, and Economic Development Administration, which are three of Commerce's smaller bureaus. It also included a performance audit of federal real property, a high-risk area identified by GAO. Further, OIG indicated completion of its FY 2017 risk assessment in June, and will be completing its FY 2017 audit plan in September - which will include performance audits of several of the Commerce's smaller bureaus, as well as consider the following high-risk areas identified by GAO in its 2015 report that could be applicable to Commerce. We believe OIG met the intent of GAO recommendation with regards to augmenting its annual risk assessment to consider (1) a rotation of performance audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO. We base our conclusion given that OIG has either conducted or scheduled to conduct performance audits to cover smaller bureaus and high-risk areas identified by GAO, which we verified on the OIG's website. However, we believe the intent of GAO's recommendation is for these audits to be performed in subsequent years going forward and not just in FY 2017. OIG was not able to provide us support to show it has formal procedures or policies in place to ensure these performance audits will be performed in future years on a rotational and periodic basis. As a result, we don't believe DOC OIG has fully met the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that written hotline policies and procedures are consistently followed and complaints are handled effectively, the Commerce IG should enhance the existing internal control activities for the OIG's hotline operations through monitoring, including self-assessment evaluations conducted by the hotline unit of itself, periodic reviews of control design, and direct testing of internal controls.

    Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated that it conducted a self-assessment of its hotline operations in fiscal year 2016, updated its complaint management policy, and is securing independent quality control reviews. We have reviewed OIG quality assessment memorandum dated 11/3/15 and verified it shows that OIG performed a self-assessment of its hotline operations, which included (1) evaluating proper handling of complaints; (2) assignment of disposition codes; and (3) time frames for processing complaints. In addition, we have reviewed OIG's updated complaint management policy and verified it contains detailed policies and procedures over its hotline operations. Therefore, we believe OIG met the intent of the recommendation with regards to conducting a self-assessment evaluation. However, we did not see where OIG met the intent of GAO recommendation with regards to having in place control activities for conducting periodic reviews of control design and direct testing of internal controls. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
    Director: Maurer, Diana C
    Phone: (202) 512-9627

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure the efficient use of resources for the Three Percent Fund, the Attorney General should develop a policy and implement procedures to regularly analyze unobligated balances and develop collection estimates in order to determine an appropriate reserve amount and inform estimates of future funding needs.

    Agency: Department of Justice
    Status: Open

    Comments: In February 2015, we found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) Collection Resource Allocation Board (CRAB) had taken steps to manage the Three Percent Fund, but it had not conducted analyses that would help DOJ better manage the fund, such as developing reserve estimates aligned with DOJ priorities or projecting future collections. GAO has identified leading practices among federal agencies when evaluating balances in federal accounts. Such practices emphasize the importance of regularly analyzing balances by, for example, estimating collections and determining reserve needs. Doing so helps agencies more effectively anticipate program needs and ensure the most efficient use of resources. As a result, we recommended that DOJ develop a policy and implement procedures to regularly analyze unobligated balances collection estimates in the Three Percent Fund. DOJ partially concurred with this recommendation. In response, DOJ provided us with a policy it began implementing in January 2016 to help them analyze the Three Percent Fund's unobligated balance and develop an appropriate reserve amount. For example, DOJ's policy for developing the reserve estimate now relies on more robust requests for information of DOJ debt collection activities, including government personnel, contract support, and automated litigation service requirements. By developing and implementing this policy, DOJ is better positioned to ensure the continuity of operations funded through the Three Percent Fund and to make future resource allocations. However, DOJ stated in its response to the report that it does not believe it is appropriate to estimate incoming collections for the following year. For example, DOJ does not ask litigating components for the number of cases that will be settled because the agency does not want to be perceived as inappropriately encouraging larger government civil collections. Additionally, DOJ does not calculate such estimates due to the high level of variability in the civil debt litigation cases that make it difficult to use historical information to estimate reserves. We noted in our report DOJ's concerns for developing collection estimates. However, we continue to believe that developing a policy for considering collection estimates is important. The Three Percent Fund is self-sustaining and does not receive annual appropriations. Therefore, any volatility should be managed with the best information and estimates the department can provide. Without developing collection estimates, DOJ is at risk of committing too much or too few budgetary resources from the Three Percent Fund. A lack of such a policy may lead to Three Percent balances either falling too low to efficiently manage operations or rise to unnecessarily high levels. As we have previously reported, one method DOJ could consider instead of a specific dollar estimate is to develop a range between the potential lowest and highest collection amounts based on historical trends and current collection activities. By estimating future collections, DOJ could better ensure it is able to efficiently fund as many programs as possible and best support the fund's priorities. Therefore, we consider this recommendation only partially implemented and will keep it open until DOJ develops collection estimates to aid managing the Three Percent Fund.
    Recommendation: To improve transparency and ensure the effective use of automation fees for the CJIS fingerprint checks fees, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should publish in the Federal Register, or other documents such as annual reports, how much is assessed for automation and cost recovery in each transaction to better communicate the cost of the service to customers and stakeholders.

    Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Status: Open

    Comments: In fiscal year 2015, we found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sets its Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) fingerprint checks fees to collect two parts--the cost recovery portion and the automation portion, but does not provide transparency in how much is assessed for each portion of the fee. As a result, we recommended that FBI publish in the Federal Register, or other documents such as annual reports, how much is assessed for automation and cost recovery in each transaction to better communicate the cost of the service to customers and stakeholders. In July 2016, FBI published a notice in the Federal Register announcing a CJIS fingerprint checks fees rate change effective on October 1, 2016. However, the notice did not include an explanation of how much is assessed for the cost recovery or the automation portion of the fee. According to a Department of Justice (DOJ) liaison, FBI included a breakout of the revised rates in its CJIS Information Letter, which services as written notification of a rate change to state and federal stakeholders. GAO requested a copy of the CJIS Information Letter, but as of February 2017, DOJ has not provided the letter. Further, while the CJIS Information Letter might provide transparency to stakeholders on how much FBI assesses for each portion of the fee, FBI has not relayed how it intends to be transparent with customers. To fully address this recommendation, FBI needs to demonstrate that it is being transparent with stakeholders and with customers. Until it does so, this recommendation will remain open.
    Recommendation: To improve transparency and ensure the effective use of automation fees for the CJIS fingerprint checks fees, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should develop a policy to analyze the unobligated balances coming from the automation portion of the fee to inform program needs, including improving methods for anticipating automation collections, and establishing a range of appropriate carryover amounts to support program needs.

    Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Status: Open

    Comments: In fiscal year 2015, we found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had a growing unobligated balance from the automation portion of its Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) fingerprint checks fees but did not evaluate the appropriate range of its carryover amounts, nor had it developed a policy to do so. As a result, we recommended that FBI develop a policy to analyze the unobligated balances coming from the automation portion of the fee to inform program needs, including improving methods for anticipating automation collections, and establishing a range of appropriate carryover amounts to support program needs. In September 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that FBI is taking steps to develop and implement a multi-year investment plan that will be reviewed and updated annually, and that will address key questions from the GAO report titled "Budget Issues: Key Questions to Consider When Evaluating Balances in Federal Accounts." Additionally, the multi-year investment plan will include both an annual analysis of current and projected revenue from the automation portion of the fee, and the evaluation of the resource requirements needed to support the development of technological enhancement of fingerprint identification and criminal justice services. According to DOJ officials, the 2017 plan will be the first to include this information; however GAO has not yet received a copy of the 2017 plan. We will continue to monitor FBI's progress on this recommendation.
    Director: Beryl H. Davis
    Phone: (202) 512-2623

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to ensure that the Commission receives effective oversight of its major programs and operations, the Commission IG, or the individual or entity that ultimately assumes IG oversight responsibilities for the Commission under an alternate structure, should conduct inspections that are fully in accordance with CIGIE's Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation and the OIG's policies and procedures.

    Agency: Denali Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Denali Commissions' office's directives include policies and procedures to address planning for, conduct of, and reporting on inspections and include a section on annual planning, risk assessments, and internal and external quality control processes and procedures. In March 2017, the Denali Commission's Inspector General (IG) provided us a template, which will be used to ensure that inspections are conducted in accordance with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency's (CIGIE) Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation and the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) policies and procedures. We have reviewed this template and concluded that it meets the intent of our recommendation. However, this template was not available in time for use during the last inspection, which was performed in 2016 and issued in March 2017. We will obtain a copy of the next inspection report once issued to ensure this latest template was used before we consider closing our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
    Director: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the Army's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund SBR FIP for budget execution and facilitate remaining efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller should identify activity attributable to assessable units associated with service provider systems and business processes having a significant impact on the Army's SBR.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. In March 2015, Army officials indicated that the Army leveraged object class codes in its enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to stratify business processes that have a significant impact on the Schedule of Budgetary Activity for fiscal year 2015 activity. The Army provided documentation supporting this effort; however, this documentation did not identify all activity attributable to assessable units associated with service provider systems and business processes having a significant impact on the Army's Statement of Budgetary Resources. In August 2016, we requested additional information from the Army. In November 2016, an Army representative indicated that the estimated timing for completing efforts to address this recommendation was the second quarter of 2017. We requested updates on the status of efforts to address this recommendation and as of August 2017, we have not received such an update.
    Recommendation: To improve the Army's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund SBR FIP for budget execution and facilitate remaining efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller should coordinate efforts with service providers to obtain and document within memorandum of understanding memorandums of understanding a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities for processing Army data.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. The Army established a Mission Work Agreement (MWA) with Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), its most significant service provider, and documented concept of operations (CONOPS) regarding various business processes, such as civilian pay and Fund Balance with Treasury. However, the MWA and CONOPS did not include sufficient detail required to adequately understand roles and responsibilities for processing and reporting the Army's financial data. In January 2016, the Army indicated that it was developing a corrective action plan to formalize policies, procedures, and processes to assess third party providers that host or manage the Army's financial systems and data and will use this assessment to clarify its understanding of shared roles and responsibilities for processing Army data. According to the Army, this effort is expected to be completed the first quarter of fiscal year 2017. In August 2017 we requested an update on the status of efforts to address this recommendation from the Army point of contact.
    Recommendation: To improve the Army's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund SBR FIP for budget execution and facilitate remaining efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller should completely and accurately document the linkage of financial reporting objectives to control activities.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. In June 2015, Army officials indicated that the Army's four financial reporting objectives (FROs) have not yet been linked to control activities. Army officials stated that the Army is continuing to analyze collection, disbursement, and Fund Balance with Treasury processes and anticipates linking these FROs to control activities based on these efforts. We requested updates on the status of efforts to address this recommendation and as of August 2017, we have not received such an update.
    Recommendation: To improve the Army's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund SBR FIP for budget execution and facilitate remaining efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller should document criteria and processes for identifying key information technology systems that have a significant impact on the Army's SBR audit readiness.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. In March 2015, Army officials indicated that the Army was in the process of identifying IT systems with a significant impact on the Army's Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) audit readiness. Furthermore, Army officials stated that for the fiscal year 2015 Schedule of Budgetary Activity Audit, the independent public accountant was conducting walkthroughs and assessing information technology systems for significant impact on Army's SBR audit readiness. In August 2016, we requested an update on the status of efforts to address this recommendation. In November 2016, an Army representative indicated that efforts were completed and a list of the criteria and processes would be provided to us. Subsequently, we requested a status update and as of August 2017, we have not received such an update.
    Recommendation: To improve the Army's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund SBR FIP for budget execution and facilitate remaining efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller should obtain and assess the results of service provider SSAE No. 16 examinations upon completion to determine the adequacy of internal controls and document complete end-to-end business processes.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2016, Army officials indicated that the Army continued to assess SSAE 16 reports including complimentary controls and incorporating end-to-end business processes as applicable. According to the Army, the estimated completion date for these efforts was the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, which in November 2016, was revised to the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. We requested updates on the status of efforts to address this recommendation and as of August 2017, we have not received such an update.
    Recommendation: To improve the Army's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund SBR FIP for budget execution and facilitate remaining efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller should correct significant deficiencies or material weaknesses identified before asserting audit readiness and engaging an IPA to validate the assertion.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. In March 2015, Army officials indicated that the Army was still working to resolve identified significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. In January 2016, Army officials indicated that the Army was assessing findings from an Independent Public Accountant in connection with its audit of Army's fiscal year 2015 Schedule of Budgetary Activity to identify deficiencies identified during previous audit readiness efforts. Repeat findings were incorporated into corrective action plans (CAP). According to the Army's January 8, 2016 CAP status report, estimated completion dates for addressing most of the findings identified were not yet determined. Since August 2016, we have requested updates on the status of efforts to address this recommendation and as of August 2017, we have not received such an update.
    Director: Kimberly Gianopoulos
    Phone: (202) 512-8612

    2 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve federal-state collaboration in providing export promotion services in accordance with the National Export Initiative, and the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, the Secretary of Commerce, as Chair of the TPCC, should take steps consistent with key practices to enhance, where possible, federal information sharing with state trade offices on Commerce's export promotion activities. This could include more formal guidance to Commerce staff regarding the circumstances, in light of legal restrictions, in which information can be shared with state trade offices and other nonfederal entities, and exploring ways for clients to give permission to release information useful to such nonfederal entities.

    Agency: Department of Commerce
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) notified GAO that it did not fully concur with GAO's May 2014 recommendation, preferring instead to maintain a case-by-case approach rather than issuing more formal guidance on federal information sharing with state trade offices. According to Commerce, as of March 2016, the agency was in the process of implementing a new client relationship management system. Commerce officials said that as future iterations of this system and public websites come online, they would seek to identify ways for clients to give permission to release information useful to other federal agencies, state trade offices, and other local service providers. In February 2016, Congress passed The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-125, which requires that within a year of the act's passing, Commerce must develop a federal-state export promotion coordination plan that addresses, among other things, information sharing between federal and state trade offices. The act also requires Commerce and state trade promotion agencies to develop a framework to share information on export successes, and report to Congress on this framework within a year of the law's enactment. Later in 2016, Commerce officials began holding monthly calls with SIDO and state trade offices to share information on topics such as client intake, performance measures, and new federal export promotion activities. In March 2017, Commerce officials informed GAO that after further review of information-sharing limitations under the Trade Secrets Act, Commerce has determined that Written Impact Narratives (WINs) that have been approved for public use by the clients can be shared with State trade agencies. Commerce is currently developing a policy to ensure they are shared in a timely manner. In addition, the newly formed Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) state and federal export promotion working group is expected to create a framework for information sharing. Without greater information sharing in the provision of similar services, Commerce will likely be limited in its ability to help ensure that export promotion services are efficiently managed across federal and state efforts, and that resources are appropriately leveraged.
    Recommendation: To improve federal-state collaboration in providing export promotion services in accordance with the National Export Initiative, and the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, the Secretary of Commerce, as Chair of the TPCC, should take steps consistent with key practices for collaboration to enhance TPCC agencies' partnering on export promotion with nonfederal entities, such as State International Development Organizations and Global Cities. This could include reassessing and strengthening the TPCC's intergovernmental partnerships by clarifying expected outcomes, defining roles and responsibilities, monitoring results, and planning resource needs.

    Agency: Department of Commerce
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), which is responsible for providing a unified national framework for export promotion, have taken some steps to enhance federal-state collaboration in export promotion, as GAO recommended in May 2014 and as called for in a subsequent law. In February 2016, Congress passed The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-125, which according to the State International Development Organizations (SIDO), contained provisions intended to enhance federal-state collaboration in export promotion. First, the act directs the President to establish a state and federal export promotion coordination working group as a subcommittee of the TPCC and appoint at least one representative from a state trade promotion agency to the TPCC. Second, beginning in February 2017, the act requires Commerce to annually submit to the TPCC a federal-state export strategy for each state that submits its export strategy to Commerce for that year that, among other things, addresses efforts to reduce duplication. Third, the act requires Commerce and state trade promotion agencies to develop a coordinated set of performance metrics, and report to Congress on these metrics within a year of the law's enactment. Fourth, the act mandates an annual survey and analysis, in coordination with state trade promotion agencies, of the overall effectiveness of federal-state coordination in export promotion. In April 2016 Commerce and SIDO signed a memorandum of intent to develop joint strategies and implement activities to enhance federal and state agency coordination and cooperation . In September 2016 Commerce issued a Federal Register Notice announcing the establishment of a state and federal export promotion coordination working group under the TPCC. The Secretary of Commerce appointed 14 members to this new working group in January 2017, which has met several times according to Commerce officials. The working group is developing a federal-state export coordination strategy that is expected to define roles and responsibilities, among other things. Successfully completing these activities is important, because without joint federal-state planning, programs at different levels of government will likely continue to be duplicative, and effective resource planning will likely be hampered.
    Director: St James, Lorelei
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: As part of the development of a national maritime strategy and a national freight strategic plan, the Secretary of Transportation should direct MARAD--in consultation with maritime industry stakeholders--to study and identify any potential problems in ensuring that U.S. mariners are adequately trained to meet the needs of the entire maritime industry, including the domestic waterways. Public forums, such as MARAD's roundtable discussions, could serve as a means for gaining industry input on potential training issues.

    Agency: Department of Transportation
    Status: Open

    Comments: On April 7, 2017 GAO requested an update on the status of MARAD's position on whether or not the recommendation would be implemented. In June 2016, MARAD indicated that it had not made this determination. In response to GAO's latest inquiry, MARAD indicated that it was in the process of checking on whether any action had been taken within the agency to implement the recommendation.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense, in his capacity as the Chief Management Officer and in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to design and implement department-level policies and detailed procedures for FIAR Plan risk management that incorporate the five guiding principles for effective risk management. The following are examples of key features of each of the guiding principles that DOD should, at a minimum, address in its policies and procedures. (1) Identify risks. Generate a comprehensive and continuously updated list of risks that includes the root cause of each risk, audit area(s) each risk will affect, and the potential consequences if a risk is not effectively mitigated. (2) Analyze risks. Consult with key stakeholders, including program managers; use analytical techniques, such as risk categorization, risk urgency assessment, or sensitivity analysis; and determine the impact of the identified risks on individual DOD components' abilities to achieve audit readiness. (3) Plan for risk mitigation. Assign responsibility or ownership of the risk mitigation actions, define roles and responsibilities in executing mitigation plans, establish deadlines or milestones for individual mitigation actions, and estimate resource needs. (4) Implement risk mitigation plan. Document the implementation of mitigation actions, develop appropriate metrics that allow for tracking of progress, and validate reported metrics. (5) Monitor risks. Track identified risks and assess the effectiveness of implemented mitigation actions on a continuous basis, including identifying and planning for new risks.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. While DOD did concur with our assessment that they did not have a risk management policy and procedures related to implementing the FIAR guidance. They did not concur with our assessment of the overall environment of DOD's risk management of the FIAR initiative. DOD has taken steps to address our recommendation including implementing an NFR tracker and standard operating procedures designed to track DOD component material weaknesses. DOD has also documented a critical path and milestones in Appendix F of their FIAR Guidance; military component tasks and milestones in appendix G of the FIAR Guidance; and audit readiness deal breakers, now referred to as critical capabilities. However, while these are positive actions, they do not address our recommendation for DOD to implement risk management policies and procedures for FIAR implementation. Further, DOD has not provided GAO with evidence of planned actions it summarized in its agency comments. Specifically, DOD has not provided documentation related to (1) improving risk management documentation, (2) reinstating the DOD probability and impact matrix, and (3) re-evaluation of metrics to monitor progress and risk of audit readiness. Lastly, DOD's tracking of military component material weaknesses does not identify risks to audit readiness, or the agencies capabilities to manage risks to audit readiness. According to the May 2017 FIAR Status Update for the HASC Panel Recommendations, DOD has reinforced the importance of internal controls over areas of significant risk by updating the FIAR Guidance with a new chapter dedicated to internal controls. DOD has also changed how they respond to recommendation follow-up by way of the Washington Headquarters Service (WHS). We are currently waiting for a POC to be assigned. We will continue to evaluate the status of actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense, in his capacity as the Chief Management Officer and in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the Navy's and DLA's risk management practices in department-level policies and procedures.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD has changed how they respond to recommendation follow-up by way of the Washington Headquarters Service (WHS). We are currently waiting for a POC to be assigned. We will continue to evaluate the status of actions to address this recommendation.