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: "Contract terms"

    7 publications with a total of 19 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: John Neumann
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    9 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To reduce pre-award administrative workload and costs, particularly for applications that do not result in awards, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services should conduct agency-wide reviews of possible actions, such as further use of preliminary proposals, to postpone pre-award requirements until after a preliminary decision about an applicant's likelihood of funding and, through OSTP's Research Business Models working group, coordinate and report on these efforts.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of February 2017, DOE stated that it remained committed to addressing this recommendation. DOE outlined several steps it planned to take, such as participating in interagency meetings, but it did not indicate whether it has taken these steps.
    Recommendation: To reduce pre-award administrative workload and costs, particularly for applications that do not result in awards, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services should conduct agency-wide reviews of possible actions, such as further use of preliminary proposals, to postpone pre-award requirements until after a preliminary decision about an applicant's likelihood of funding and, through OSTP's Research Business Models working group, coordinate and report on these efforts.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to HHS, NIH is considering the feasibility of an approach to streamline its application process. As of May 2017, HHS anticipated implementing this recommendation by early fiscal year 2019.
    Recommendation: To reduce pre-award administrative workload and costs, particularly for applications that do not result in awards, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services should conduct agency-wide reviews of possible actions, such as further use of preliminary proposals, to postpone pre-award requirements until after a preliminary decision about an applicant's likelihood of funding and, through OSTP's Research Business Models working group, coordinate and report on these efforts.

    Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of February 2017, NASA anticipated implementing this recommendation by September 2017. NASA stated that it is working with other federal agencies to identify best practices for reducing the administrative burden to applicants and will assess the impact these practices have on the quality of applications so that NASA can continue to meet its mission.
    Recommendation: To better target requirements on areas of greatest risk, while maintaining accountability over grant funds, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as part of the planned evaluation of the HHS regulation governing financial conflicts of interest in NIH-funded research, should evaluate options for targeting requirements on areas of greatest risk for researcher conflicts, including adjusting the threshold and types of financial interests that need to be disclosed and the timing of disclosures.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: HHS stated that, as of May 2017, NIH was proceeding with plans to assess the financial conflict of interest regulation, including how to reduce administrative burden on researchers while maintaining the integrity and credibility of research findings.
    Recommendation: To better target requirements on areas of greatest risk, while maintaining accountability over grant funds, the Director of OMB, as part of OMB's planned evaluation of the Uniform Guidance, should evaluate options for targeting requirements for research grants to universities, including requirements for purchases and subrecipient monitoring, on areas of greatest risk for improper use of research funds.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of August 2017, OMB had not provided information on steps it has taken to implement this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To further standardize administrative research requirements, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of NSF should coordinate through Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) Research Business Models working group to identify additional areas where they can standardize requirements and report on these efforts.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act was signed into law, requiring the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to establish an interagency working group to reduce administrative workload and costs while protecting the transparency of and accountability for federally funded research. As of March 2017, DOE, HHS, NASA, and NSF stated that, as part of their efforts to implement GAO's recommendation, they would coordinate with other research funding agencies through this interagency working group.
    Recommendation: To further standardize administrative research requirements, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of NSF should coordinate through Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) Research Business Models working group to identify additional areas where they can standardize requirements and report on these efforts.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act was signed into law, requiring the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to establish an interagency working group to reduce administrative workload and costs while protecting the transparency of and accountability for federally funded research. As of March 2017, DOE, HHS, NASA, and NSF stated that, as part of their efforts to implement GAO's recommendation, they would coordinate with other research funding agencies through this interagency working group.
    Recommendation: To further standardize administrative research requirements, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of NSF should coordinate through Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) Research Business Models working group to identify additional areas where they can standardize requirements and report on these efforts.

    Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In January 2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act was signed into law, requiring the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to establish an interagency working group to reduce administrative workload and costs while protecting the transparency of and accountability for federally funded research. As of March 2017, DOE, HHS, NASA, and NSF stated that, as part of their efforts to implement GAO's recommendation, they would coordinate with other research funding agencies through this interagency working group.
    Recommendation: To further standardize administrative research requirements, the Secretary of Energy, the NASA Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director of NSF should coordinate through Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) Research Business Models working group to identify additional areas where they can standardize requirements and report on these efforts.

    Agency: National Science Foundation
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act was signed into law, requiring the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to establish an interagency working group to reduce administrative workload and costs while protecting the transparency of and accountability for federally funded research. As of March 2017, DOE, HHS, NASA, and NSF stated that, as part of their efforts to implement GAO's recommendation, they would coordinate with other research funding agencies through this interagency working group.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, in arrangements where the shipbuilder is paid to correct defects, to structure contract terms such that shipbuilders do not earn profit for correcting construction deficiencies following delivery that are determined to be their responsibility.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, and has completed a study reviewing our findings. The study, conducted by the CNA Analysis and Solutions, found that our recommendations were well founded and appropriate. In response to our report and the study, the Navy states it will provide written guidance by the end of 2017 to prevent shipbuilders from earning profit for correcting shipbuilder-responsible defects.
    Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to establish and document a clear objective for using a guaranty, and then create guidance for contracting officers that illustrates how to implement a guaranty that meets this objective. This guidance should describe how contracting officers should use aspects of the guaranty, including determining an appropriate limitation of liability, to achieve the objective and include considerations as to when a guaranty should be a separate contract line item.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, and agreed to conduct a study to determine what policy and guidance changes are necessary to provide guidance on the many factors that should be considered to effectively implement warranty and guaranty provisions. As of April 2017, this study is complete and the Navy states that it now concurs with our recommendation. In doing so, the Navy is drafting an instruction, including a decision template, laying out the considerations underlying the decision to use warranties, guarantees or other mechanisms. This instruction will help contracting officers choose an appropriate tool and document the decision in a business clearance memorandum. The Navy plans to implement the instruction by the end of 2017.
    Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, for future ship construction contracts, to determine whether or not a warranty as provided in the FAR, provides value and document the costs, benefits, and other factors used to make this decision. To inform this determination, the Navy should begin differentiating the government's and shipbuilder's responsibility for defects and track the costs to correct all defects after ship delivery.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, and has completed a study reviewing our findings. The study, conducted by the CNA Analysis and Solutions, found that our recommendations were well founded and appropriate. In response to our report and the study, the Navy states it will include separate contract line items for FAR-type warranties in at least two solicitations for ship construction. In addition, the Navy states that it plans to revise data requirements to better gather and track contractor responsible defects, and then develop analytical methods to help make better determinations in the future as to the optimal guaranty duration and limit of liability. They expect to complete these activities by December 2017.
    Director: David J. Wise
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To demonstrate the effects of GSA's ongoing efforts to better manage lease holdovers and extensions, the Administrator of GSA should identify performance goals and targets for existing or other measures related to the use of holdovers and extensions for expiring leases within GSA's strategic plan or in another agency planning document. GSA should ensure such goals, targets, and associated measures fully reflect progress, by taking into account the frequency with which holdovers and extensions occur for expiring leases within its portfolio and GSA's expected outcomes for expiring leases.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: GSA provided information to GAO in March 2017 to show that this recommendation had been implemented. Specifically, GSA updated its strategic planning process related to lease holdovers and extensions and created an up-front planning measure for expiring leases. GAO had follow up questions seeking more assurance from GSA that these actions would have the intended effect of reducing lease holdovers and extensions. As of June 2017, GAO was awaiting a response from GSA.
    Director: Marie A. Mak
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide greater awareness of and compliance with the specialty metal restrictions among DOD weapon system programs and their defense supplier-base, the Secretary of Defense should establish a mechanism for sharing and distributing non-sensitive information about national security waivers throughout the department and the defense supplier-base.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: To address the recommendation, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is presently working on a substantive change to their internal instruction regarding the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP)and DCMA Forum Regarding Defective/Nonconforming Product and Process Notifications. The new version of this guidance (DCMA-INST-301), upon its planned release in March 2018, will address both specialty metals non-compliance and counterfeit occurrences. Additionally, DCMA officials stated they are communicating DCMA's specialty metals non-compliance reporting process via a Quality Technical Information Paper and the DCMA Forum (an internal DCMA communication tool). DCMA's website also includes guidance on reporting of specialty metals non-compliance issues.
    Director: Draper, Debra A
    Phone: (202) 512-7114

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide decision makers with more complete information on the continued appropriateness of the current pharmacy services contract structure, and to ensure the best value and services to the government and beneficiaries, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to conduct an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits of alternative contract structures for the TRICARE pharmacy services contract.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The current TRICARE pharmacy services contract began in May 2015, with 1 base year and 7 option years. DOD officials stated that they intend to conduct an evaluation of the potential costs and benefits of alternative contract structures as they undergo the next acquisition cycle. GAO will continue to follow up on these recommendations as DOD begins its acquisition planning efforts for the next cycle.
    Recommendation: To provide decision makers with more complete information on the continued appropriateness of the current pharmacy services contract structure, and to ensure the best value and services to the government and beneficiaries, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to incorporate such an evaluation into acquisition planning.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD officials stated that they intend to include such an evaluation in their acquisition planning for the next acquisition cycle. GAO will continue to follow up on these recommendations as DOD begins its acquisition planning efforts for the next cycle.
    Director: Hutton, John P
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure DOD officials are able to gain insight into the risk assessment that is required to be documented in the contract file and the basis for the government's profit or fee negotiation objective, the Secretary of Defense should redesign the weighted guidelines worksheet to explicitly show the incurred cost calculations and a narrative description of the reason for assigning a specific contract-type risk value.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions necessary to implement it. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy's(DPAP) members have drafted two proposed changes to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplemental (DFARS). The first proposed rule is designed to provide a more transparent means of documenting the impact of costs incurred during the undefinitized period of an undefinitized contract action (UCA) on allowable profit. Proposed changes to the worksheet include more transparency and narrative requirements to detail the rationale for contracting officers' assignments of weighted guideline values. In addition to proposed changes to the weighted guideline worksheet, the proposed DFARS rule also provides new narrative requirements for Price Negotiation Memorandums. The second proposed rule changes the undefinitized period for a UCA from UCA award to the date when the government receives a qualifying proposal from the contractor as opposed to the date when the UCA is definitized. These proposed rules are currently being reviewed and approved by senior DOD officials. DPAP expects to finalize these proposed rules sometime later this year. If one or both are approved, the final rules will be published after a 90 day comment period.
    Director: Goldstein, Mark L
    Phone: (202) 512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness and accountability of FCC's efforts to oversee wireless phone service, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should direct the commission to develop goals and related measures for FCC's informal complaint-handing efforts that clearly articulate intended outcomes and address important dimensions of performance.

    Agency: Federal Communications Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its February 5, 2010 response, FCC stated that it would consider establishing meaningful and measurable outcome-based standards in the context of its efforts to reassess goals for the mediation of informal consumer complaints. FCC noted that it already has basic performance metrics for responding to consumer complaints in a timely manner and will examine ways to automate such responses and provide them by email, which may be more efficient than processing these complaints manually and mailing a paper response. In June 2011, FCC stated it had taken steps to improve its complaint-handling efforts by increasing staff training and beginning an effort to revise its complaint coding and intake process, which it expects to complete by the end of fiscal year 2011. FCC also stated it is considering other enhancements for fiscal year 2012. However, this response did not mention any direct action in response to the recommendation. In May 2012, FCC stated it had begun an effort to improve its informal complaint-handling, including revising its complaint intake and coding procedures with an emphasis on collecting information to enhance policymaking and compliance activities. The response did not specifically mention goals and measures, but said the effort was ongoing and expected to continue through the end of 2012. In August 2013, FCC stated it was considering a proposal for comprehensive reform to its consumer complaint process. The agency hoped to institute performance measures for the consumer complaint process as part of the reform. In June 2014, FCC staff said that the FCC Chairman had set a goal to reform the agency's complaint process by the end of 2014. In August 2016, FCC staff said that the agency is working to develop performance metrics for its complaint-handling efforts. We will continue to follow up with FCC about its efforts.
    Recommendation: To better ensure a systemwide focus in providing oversight of wireless phone service and improve FCC's partnership with state agencies that also oversee this service, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should direct the commission to develop and issue guidance delineating federal and state authority to regulate wireless phone service, including pulling together prior rulings on this issue; addressing the related open proceedings on truth-in-billing and early termination fees; and, if needed, seeking appropriate statutory authority from Congress.

    Agency: Federal Communications Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its February 5, 2010 response, FCC noted that the Notice of Inquiry on Consumer Information and Disclosure it released on August 9, 2009, provides an opportunity for the agency to review prior rulings and related open proceedings. The response also stated that FCC's Wireless Bureau and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau are working together to review areas of the Communications Act where clarification is needed regarding state and federal roles for oversight of wireless phone service. In June 2011, FCC stated that it was continuing to hold regular meetings with associations representing state agency officials, but did not mention taking any action to directly address the recommendation. In May 2012, FCC stated that the topic of wireless regulation is discussed during intergovernmental webinars FCC hosts with state and local government offices, but did not indicate it had developed and issued guidance as called for in the recommendation. In August 2013, FCC stated that it has not issued any formal guidance on delineating federal and state wireless oversight authority. In June 2014, FCC stated that the commission was considering making changes to its truth-in-billing rules by the end of 2014 and that such a proceeding would include addressing how FCC partners with states in protecting wireless consumers. In July 2016, FCC said that it planned to address this issue in December 2017.