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: "Cost and schedule performance"

    7 publications with a total of 29 open recommendations
    Director: Carol Harris
    Phone: (202) 512-4456

    14 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office establishes and implements specific time frames for determining key strategic implementation details, including how the program will transition from the current state to the final TIM state. (Recommendation 1)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office establishes a schedule that provides planned completion dates based on realistic estimates of how long it will take to deliver capabilities. (Recommendation 2)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office establishes new time frames for implementing the actions identified in the organizational change management strategy and effectively executes against these time frames. (Recommendation 3)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office defines and documents the roles and responsibilities among product owners, the solution team, and any other relevant stakeholders for prioritizing and approving Agile software development work. (Recommendation 4)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office establishes specific prioritization levels for current and future features and user stories. (Recommendation 5)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office implements automated Agile management testing and deployment tools, as soon as possible. (Recommendation 6)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office updates the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Tailoring Plan to reflect the current governance framework and milestone review processes. (Recommendation 7)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office establishes thresholds or targets for acceptable performance-levels. (Recommendation 8)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office begins collecting and reporting on Agile-related cost metrics. (Recommendation 9)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office ensures that program velocity is measured and reported consistently. (Recommendation 10)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The TSA Administrator should ensure that the TIM program management office ensures that unit test coverage for software releases is measured and reported accurately. (Recommendation 11)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Management to ensure that appropriate DHS leadership reaches consensus on needed oversight and governance changes related to the frequency of reviewing Agile programs, and then documents and implements associated changes. (Recommendation 12)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Management to ensure that the Office of the Chief Technology Officer completes guidance for Agile programs to use for collecting and reporting on performance metrics. (Recommendation 13)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for Management to ensure that DHS-level oversight bodies review key Agile performance and cost metrics for the TIM program and use them to inform management oversight decisions. (Recommendation 14)

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

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

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should identify the specific types of information that would best meet the department's needs and, based on that determination, collect and analyze relevant data after contract performance is sufficiently complete to determine the extent to which contracts with incentives achieved their desired outcomes.

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

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure the Milestone Decision Authority has an accurate and credible cost estimate for the Milestone C program review, Naval Sea Systems Command Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis Group (NAVSEA 05C) should update the cost estimate for CVN 79 as part of the Ford-Class program life-cycle cost estimate. This estimate should be prepared in accordance with cost estimating best practices and include current shipbuilder performance data. The Naval Center for Cost Analysis (NCCA) should review the new CVN 79 cost estimate as part of the planned independent cost assessment. Further, the Secretary of Defense should direct the CAPE to include the new CVN 79 cost estimate as part of the planned independent cost estimate, which should form the basis of the program budget request. If the independent cost estimate for CVN 79 should exceed the cost cap, the Navy should submit to Congress a request to revise the cost cap.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: Starting with CVN 80, NAVSEA 05C should develop program life-cycle cost estimates for each individual ship in the Ford-Class program baseline. Development of these estimates should be provided at milestone reviews that should be aligned with major aircraft carrier funding events. In particular, for CVN 80, a program life-cycle cost estimate should be developed prior to the request for ship construction funding. For all ships in the class after CVN 80, a program life-cycle cost estimate should be aligned with milestone reviews that correspond with the receipt of any advance procurement funding and the first year of the request for ship construction funding. These estimates should be prepared in accordance with best practices and updated regularly with actual cost data. The Secretary of Defense should further direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to develop independent cost estimates for these ships prior to the listed events. The Secretary of the Navy should direct NCCA to conduct independent cost assessments for these ships prior to the listed events.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To improve insight into cost changes for individual ships in the Ford Class, the program office should prepare cost summary and funding summary sections for each individual ship in the class as part of the SAR for the overall Ford-Class program.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance program oversight and provide more robust input to budget deliberations, Congress should consider requiring DOD to report on each major acquisition program's systems engineering status in the department's annual budget request, beginning with the budget requesting funds to start development. The information could be presented on a simple timeline--as done for the case studies in this report--and at a minimum should reflect the status of a program's functional and allocated baselines as contained in the most current version of the program's systems engineering plan.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: Congress has not yet taken action on the matter for consideration. GAO will continue to monitor.
    Director: Cristina Chaplain
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: When planning for the next phase of national security space launches, Phase 2, the Secretary of the Air Force should consider using an incremental approach to the next launch services acquisition strategy. Planning for acquisitions on a short term basis will help ensure that the Air Force does not commit itself to a strategy until the appropriate amount of data is available to make an informed decision, and will allow for flexibility in responding to a changing launch industry.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation but has not yet completed actions necessary to implement it. The acquisition strategy for the next phase of national security launches, Phase 2, has not yet been finalized by the Air Force. The EELV program office expects it to be completed in the summer of 2018.
    Director: Mike Sullivan
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to establish guidelines on what constitutes a "current" ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes; the types of programs, if any, that do not require ACAT designations; and whether the rules for identifying current MDAPs would be appropriate for ACAT II and III programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review existing policies and determine whether they needed to be altered or supplemented to facilitate data collection and reporting on ACAT II and III programs. In November 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, a planned DOD IG review in fiscal year 2018 could lead to further action on this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to determine what metrics should be used and what data should be collected on ACAT II and III programs to measure cost and schedule performance; and whether the use of DAMIR and the MDAP selected acquisition report format may be appropriate for collecting data on ACAT II and III programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In November 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics reviewed information on DOD component efforts to collect data on the cost and schedule performance of ACAT II and III programs and stated that it does not plan to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, a planned DOD IG review in fiscal year 2018 could lead to further action on this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to assess the reliability of data collected on ACAT II and III programs and work with PEOs to develop a strategy to improve procedures for the entry and maintenance of data.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components evaluate the data they collect on ACAT II and III programs, report on their assessment of the data's reliability, and provide an update on their plans to improve the availability and quality of the data. In November 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. However, a planned DOD IG review in fiscal year 2018 could lead to further action on this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to develop implementation plans to coordinate and execute component initiatives to improve data on ACAT II and III programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, but the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. However, we are keeping this recommendation open at this time.
    Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force and Commander of SOCOM to establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with APB requirements in DOD policy.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review their mechanisms for establishing and enforcing the APB requirements for all ACAT II and III programs. In November 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, we are keeping this recommendation open at this time.
    Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to improve component procedures for notifying the Defense Acquisition Executive of programs with a cost estimate within 10 percent of ACAT I cost thresholds.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency partially concurred with this recommendation. The Army and Navy have reiterated existing guidance and the Air Force is evaluating additional actions it might take to improve its notification procedures.
    Director: Powner, David A
    Phone: (202)512-9286

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the reliability of reported cost and schedule variance information for the seven major investments we reviewed, the Acting Commissioner of IRS should direct the Chief Technology Officer to improve the reliability of cost estimates by addressing the weaknesses we identified in this report so that each investment at least substantially meets each of the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: We followed up on the status of IRS's actions to address this recommendation for the Customer Account Data Engine (CADE) 2, the Return Review Program (RRP), and IRS.gov, the three investments with significant planned expenditures for development in fiscal year 2017, according to data reported on the Federal IT dashboard (the remaining four investments in our 2013 review are primarily in operations and maintenance based on the same IT dashboard data). We selected CADE 2, RRP, and IRS.gov because they would benefit most from improvements to cost estimates given their life cycle stage. In the Summer of 2017, IRS provided documentation to demonstrate actions taken to address the weaknesses we had identified with the CADE 2, and RRP cost estimates. We are currently analyzing this information. For IRS.gov, IRS told us the investment had been in operations and maintenance for several years and was therefore not producing the cost documentation that is typically associated with development efforts. We requested documentation supporting this claim and as of September 2017 were waiting to receive it.
    Recommendation: To improve the reliability of reported cost and schedule variance information for the seven major investments we reviewed, the Acting Commissioner of IRS should direct the Chief Technology Officer to improve the extent to which schedules are well-constructed and controlled by addressing the weaknesses we identified in this report so that each investment at least substantially meets each of these characteristics.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: We followed up on the status of IRS's actions to address this recommendation for the Customer Account Data Engine (CADE) 2, the Return Review Program (RRP), and IRS.gov, the three investments with significant expenditures planned for development in fiscal year 2017, according to data reported on the Federal IT dashboard (the remaining four investments in our 2013 review are primarily in operations and maintenance based on the same IT dashboard data). We selected CADE 2, RRP, and IRS.gov because they would benefit most from improvements to schedule estimates given their life cycle stage. In the Summer of 2017, IRS provided documentation to demonstrate actions taken to address the weaknesses we had identified with the CADE 2, and RRP schedule estimates. We are currently analyzing this documentation. For IRS.gov, IRS told us the investment had been in operations and maintenance for several years and was therefore not producing the schedule estimates that are typically associated with development efforts. We requested documentation supporting this claim and as of September 2017 were waiting to receive it.
    Recommendation: To improve the reliability of reported cost and schedule variance information for the seven major investments we reviewed, the Acting Commissioner of IRS should direct the Chief Technology Officer to develop and implement guidance that specifies best practices--such as including evaluating critical path (for projected schedule), using earned value management data, evaluating the performance of completed work and comparing it to the remaining budget, assessing commitment values for material needed to complete remaining work, and estimating future conditions--to consider when determining projected cost and schedule amounts.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, we reported on IRS's development and implementation of its Investment Performance Tool for tracking cost, schedule and scope metrics for its IT investments. At the time, IRS was using the tool for two investments. As of September 2017, we were reviewing the agency?s use of the tool as part of an ongoing review. We plan to further examine the use of the tool and the supporting guidance to determine the extent to which they address this recommendation.