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: "Defense budgets"

    47 publications with a total of 97 open recommendations including 7 priority recommendations
    Director: John H. Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: As the department seeks to report on and achieve required cost savings, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to develop reliable cost savings estimates that include detailed information and documentation to allow for clear tracking of cost savings by DOD and Congress.

    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: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide guidance in the DOD Financial Management Regulation on the timing of when DOD managers should use available tools to help ensure that monthly cash balances are within the upper and lower cash requirements.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to update the DOD Financial Management Regulation as we recommended to provide additional guidance on the timing of when DOD managers should use available tools to help ensure that monthly cash balances are within the upper and lower cash requirements. DOD also stated that this change will be incorporated for the fiscal year 2019 President's Budget submission and subsequent budgets.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (404) 679-1816

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide additional information for congressional decision makers regarding DOD's budget, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the OMB, to reevaluate and revise the criteria for determining what can be included in DOD's OCO budget requests to reflect current OCO-related activities and relevant budget policy directing in which budget requests OCO funds may be included.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have not taken action on our recommendation. In DOD's response to a draft of our report, DOD concurred with our first recommendation and stated it planned to propose updated criteria to OMB to reflect current and evolving threats and reflect any changes in overseas contingency operations policy under the new Administration. As of June 2017, neither OMB nor DOD has publically released updated criteria, and DOD has not made any updates to Volume 12, Chapter 23 of its Financial Management Regulation that governs contingency operations to reflect the criteria. According to an official at DOD, at this time, there are no updates to the criteria for determining what can be included in DOD's overseas contingency operations budget request nor are there efforts underway between DOD and OMB to update the criteria. In addition, DOD's fiscal year 2018 budget request continued to include activities that our report identified as not being specifically addressed in the OMB criteria, including operations in Syria, the European Reassurance Initiative, and security cooperation funds (formerly the known as the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund).
    Recommendation: To assist decision makers in formulating DOD's future budgets, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to develop a complete and reliable estimate of DOD's enduring OCO costs and to report these costs in concert with the department's future budget requests, and to use the estimate as a foundation for any future efforts to transition enduring costs to DOD's base budget.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The department has not, as yet, responded to our recommendation, and DOD's fiscal year 2018 budget request, issued in May 2017, did not include an estimate of its enduring overseas contingency operations costs as we had recommended. In its response to our draft report, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and commented that developing reliable estimates is an important first step in any future effort to transition these costs to the base budget. However, DOD stated that until there is relief from the budgetary caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, DOD would need overseas contingency operations funds to finance counterterrorism operations, such as Operation Freedom's Sentinel and Operation Inherent Resolve. DOD also offered no plans to take action to address this recommendation in its response to our draft report.
    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: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to improve the accuracy of the information included in the operation and maintenance (O&M) budget justification material submitted to Congress and provide complete information to review the military services' fuel consumption spending requests, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, to develop an approach to reconcile data on fuel consumption reported by the military services and fuel sales to the military services reported by DLA and take any appropriate corrective actions to improve the accuracy of actual fuel consumption spending data.

    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: In order to improve the accuracy of the information included in the O&M budget justification material submitted to Congress and provide complete information to review the military services' fuel consumption spending requests, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, to report complete fuel consumption information to Congress, to include actual and estimated fuel volume and actual O&M base obligations for fuel consumption spending separate from O&M Overseas Contingency Operations obligations. This information could be provided as part of DOD's annual O&M budget justification materials, or through other reporting mechanisms.

    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: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    5 open recommendations
    including 5 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to establish comprehensive readiness rebuilding goals to guide readiness rebuilding efforts and a strategy for implementing identified goals, to include resources needed to implement the strategy.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD has not yet taken steps to establish comprehensive readiness rebuilding goals to guide readiness rebuilding efforts and a strategy for implementing identified goals, to include resources needed to implement the strategy. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required DOD to submit a detailed plan for rebuilding the readiness of the military force, to include comprehensive readiness goals and a strategy for achieving the goals. DOD did not provide this plan by the September 30, 2016 deadline. In October 2016, we confirmed that DOD had begun efforts to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness, but the plan did not materialize. In January 2017, the White House issued an executive order requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review assessing the current condition of readiness and identifying actions that can be implemented to improve readiness. As of April 2017, DOD had begun taking steps to develop a readiness rebuilding plan, including identifying goals and metrics, as well as identifying challenges preventing the military services from rebuilding readiness. The department had also taken steps to develop a 60-day Action Plan in response to the January 2017 Executive Order. However, DOD had not submitted its plan for rebuilding the readiness of the force to Congress, nor had the department taken steps to fully address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to develop metrics for measuring interim progress at specific milestones against identified goals for all services.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD has not yet developed metrics for measuring interim progress at specific milestones against identified readiness rebuilding goals for each of the military services. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required DOD to submit a detailed plan for rebuilding the readiness of the military force, to include metrics for measuring progress at specific milestones. DOD did not provide this plan by the September 30, 2016 deadline. In October 2016, we confirmed that DOD had begun efforts to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness, but the plan did not materialize. In January 2017, the White House issued an executive order requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review assessing the current condition of readiness and identifying actions that can be implemented to improve readiness. As of April 2017, DOD had begun taking steps to develop a readiness rebuilding plan, including identifying goals and metrics, as well as identifying challenges preventing the military services from rebuilding readiness. The department had also taken steps to develop a 60-day Action Plan in response to the January 2017 Executive Order. However, DOD had not submitted its plan for rebuilding the readiness of the force to Congress, nor had the department taken steps to fully address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to identify external factors that may impact readiness recovery plans, including how they influence the underlying assumptions, to ensure that readiness rebuilding goals are achievable within established time frames. This should include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of the impact of assumptions about budget, maintenance time frames, and training that underpin the services' readiness recovery plans.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD has not yet taken steps to identify external factors that may impact readiness recovery plans. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required DOD to submit a detailed plan for rebuilding the readiness of the military force, to include identification of external factors that may impact recovery plans and potential mitigations. DOD did not provide this plan by the September 30, 2016 deadline. In October 2016, we confirmed that DOD had begun efforts to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness, but the plan did not materialize. In January 2017, the White House issued an executive order requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review assessing the current condition of readiness and identifying actions that can be implemented to improve readiness. As of April 2017, DOD had begun taking steps to develop a readiness rebuilding plan, including identifying goals and metrics, as well as identifying challenges preventing the military services from rebuilding readiness. The department had also taken steps to develop a 60-day Action Plan in response to the January 2017 Executive Order. However, DOD had not submitted its plan for rebuilding the readiness of the force to Congress, nor had the department taken steps to fully address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the department has adequate oversight of service readiness rebuilding efforts and that these efforts reflect the department's priorities, the Secretary of Defense should validate the service-established readiness rebuilding goals, strategies for achieving the goals, and metrics for measuring progress, and revise as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD has not yet taken steps to validate the service-established readiness rebuilding goals, strategies for achieving the goals, and metrics for measuring progress, and revise as appropriate. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required DOD to submit a detailed plan for rebuilding the readiness of the military force, to include plans for department-level oversight of service readiness recovery efforts. DOD did not provide this plan by the September 30, 2016 deadline. In October 2016, we confirmed that DOD had begun efforts to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness, but the plan did not materialize. In January 2017, the White House issued an executive order requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review assessing the current condition of readiness and identifying actions that can be implemented to improve readiness. As of April 2017, DOD had begun taking steps to develop a readiness rebuilding plan, including identifying goals and metrics, as well as identifying challenges preventing the military services from rebuilding readiness. The department had also taken steps to develop a 60-day Action Plan in response to the January 2017 Executive Order. However, DOD had not submitted its plan for rebuilding the readiness of the force to Congress, nor had the department taken steps to fully address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the department has adequate oversight of service readiness rebuilding efforts and that these efforts reflect the department's priorities, the Secretary of Defense should develop a method to evaluate the department's readiness recovery efforts against the agreed-upon goals through objective measurement and systematic analysis.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD has not yet developed a method to evaluate the department's readiness recovery efforts against the agreed-upon goals through objective measurement and systematic analysis. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required DOD to submit a detailed plan for rebuilding the readiness of the military force, to include plans for department-level oversight of service readiness recovery efforts. DOD did not provide this plan by the September 30, 2016 deadline. In October 2016, we confirmed that DOD had begun efforts to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness, but the plan did not materialize. In January 2017, the White House issued an executive order requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review assessing the current condition of readiness and identifying actions that can be implemented to improve readiness. As of April 2017, DOD had begun taking steps to develop a readiness rebuilding plan, including identifying goals and metrics, as well as identifying challenges preventing the military services from rebuilding readiness. The department had also taken steps to develop a 60-day Action Plan in response to the January 2017 Executive Order. However, DOD had not submitted its plan for rebuilding the readiness of the force to Congress, nor had the department taken steps to fully address this recommendation.
    Director: Andrew Von Ah
    Phone: (213) 830-1011

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that Congress will have more complete information on DOD's full funding needs for its O&M base budget and to conduct oversight of DOD's use of OCO funds to support base programs and activities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to revise its guidance on preparing budget justification materials and execution reports for Congress to require the addition of O&M obligations used for base programs and activities at the level of information presented for each account.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD continues to non-concur with our recommendation; however, we continue to believe that the recommendation is valid and will follow up annually on the status of the recommendation.
    Director: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve budgeting and management of carryover, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Army Materiel Command to incorporate in its regulation provisions for a repair process that includes upfront communication and coordination among AMC and non-AMC stakeholders that will result in the development of a well-defined scope of work and parts needed by the Industrial Operations activities to perform the repair work that will help reduce carryover.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD stated that the Army will enforce policy and business rules that require Organic Industrial Base facilities to communicate with their customers early to verify the scope of work and ensure that the Army has the required capability, capacity, equipment, and parts needed to meet delivery schedules and avoid excessive carryover. DOD also stated that it will update its policy and publish its draft regulation during fiscal year 2017.
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that Congress has the necessary information to provide effective oversight over DOD's workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to address ongoing requirements in section 955 and include this information in status reports that accompany the President's budget request for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. The information to be included in future status reports includes (1) a comprehensive description of a plan to achieve savings for the civilian workforce and contractor workforce for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017; (2) a description demonstrating that the plan is consistent with policies and procedures implementing workforce-management laws and steps the department is taking to ensure that no unjustified transfers between workforces take place as part of the implementing plan; (3) status reports to be included in the President's budget request for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 describing the implementation of the plan in the prior year; (4) the cost of covered civilian personnel and military basic pay for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, and an assessment of these costs in regard to their compliance with the statutory requirements set forth in section 955; and (5) an explanation for any shortfall in its reductions for the civilian and contractor workforces, and a description of actions DOD is taking to achieve the required savings.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: Update September 2016: In DOD's most recent status report issued in February 2016, DOD did not fully address our recommendations.
    Director: Timothy J. DiNapoli
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD has the right people with the right skills to meet future needs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Director, Human Capital Initiatives to issue guidance to focus component hiring efforts using the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund on priority career fields.

    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: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but has not taken the full actions necessary to implement it. Human Capital Initiatives issued updated guidance on the use of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund in 2016 and 2017 but the guidance did not focus component hiring efforts on specific career fields. The officials stated that the DOD military departments and other DOD components determine their own requirements for the acquisition workforce, including which career fields to identify as critical. In a March 2017 report, we noted that the Army's fiscal year 2017 DAWDF guidance, which was issued in 2016, identified priority career fields where DAWDF funded hiring efforts could be focused, while the Air Force's and Navy's guidance did not. The Army's fiscal year 2018 DAWDF guidance also identified priority career fields, including business (which includes financial management and cost estimating) contracting, systems engineering, and science and technology.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD has the right people with the right skills to meet future needs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Director, Human Capital Initiatives to ensure the functional leader for the production, quality, and manufacturing career field completes an initial competency assessment.

    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: DOD concurred with the recommendation. Officials within the Human Capital Initiatives (HCI) office stated that DOD initiated a strategic analysis in fiscal year 2017 to better understand the acquisition workforce performing Production, Quality, and Manufacturing (PQM) functions. This analysis will help identify how best to structure the PQM career field in order to manage this workforce in a more effective and efficient manner. Initial analysis findings are expected by the end of 2017 and will be used to inform a PQM competency assessment. HCI will partner with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to use their competency assessment team to conduct competency assessments for each acquisition functional career field. The plan is to conduct four assessments annually, starting in October 2017 with an anticipated completion date for all career fields by 2021.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD has the right people with the right skills to meet future needs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Director, Human Capital Initiatives to establish time frames, in collaboration with functional leaders, to complete future career field competency assessments.

    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: DOD concurred with the recommendation and has taken some steps to implement it. The Human Capital Initiatives (HCI) office issued an updated strategic acquisition workforce plan in 2016. This plan stated that conducting career field competency assessments at a minimum of every five years helps the acquisition workforce to effectively manage their careers. Officials within the HCI office stated that they will partner with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to use their competency assessment team to conduct competency assessments for each acquisition functional career field. The plan is to conduct four career field assessments a year, starting in October 2017 with an anticipated completion date for all career fields by 2021.
    Director: Ayers, Johana R
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's methodology for developing its standard fuel price for fiscal year 2017 and future fiscal years, GAO reiterated recommendations from its 2014 report that DOD reevaluate its approach for estimating the standard price and document its assumptions, including providing a detailed rationale for how it estimates each component of the price.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation, but did not identify what actions it may or may not be taking to address it. As of July 2016, DOD had not taken steps to implement the recommendation. According to the DOD Comptroller official who is responsible for managing the bulk fuel program, the department does not have a similar formal process for determining rates for other commodities and working capital funds. Therefore, the official stated that DOD does not want to make the bulk fuel standard price determination unique and apart from these other commodities. Because of concerns with the quality and transparency of information available to Congressional decision makers and department fuel customers concerning the methodology selected each year and its application to relevant data used in estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year, the Senate Armed Services Committee directed DOD to submit detailed guidance to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2017 that, among other aspects, requires documentation of the rationale for using one methodology over another for estimating the next fiscal year?s fuel rate price, to include the limitations and assumptions of underlying data and establishing a timeline for developing annual estimated fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year. As of September 2017, DOD has not submitted a report in response to Congressional direction.
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of PCS data in service budget materials. This action should include revising existing guidance on the reporting of non-temporary storage costs, and clarifying existing guidance on the presentation of other PCS data.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD is forming a working group to address issues concerning the PSC program. Although a charter had not been finalized as of July 2016, the working group, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy), within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction, within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget), will review current PCS budgetary reporting requirements and revise these as necessary. DOD expects the effort under the working group to be completed in October 2017.
    Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to complete periodic evaluations of whether the PCS program is efficiently supporting DOD's requirements for assigning military personnel to new locations while reimbursing servicemembers for allowable expenses incurred during PCS moves. These periodic evaluations should identify changes in PCS per-move costs over time, factors driving such changes, and steps that could be taken to manage and control cost growth.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD is forming a working group to address issues concerning the PSC program. Although a charter had not been finalized as of July 2016, the working group, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy), within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction, within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget), will coordinate with key stakeholders (e.g. Military Departments and Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Travel Management Office) on efforts to complete periodic evaluations of the efficiency and effective of the PCS program. DOD expects the effort under the working group to be completed in October 2017.
    Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of data on exceptions used for PCS moves that occur prior to established time-on-station lengths. This action should include clarifying existing guidance with regard to how the services collect, maintain, and report data on exceptions for use in evaluating performance in meeting time-on-station requirements and addressing challenges related to the services' abilities to collect, maintain, and report exceptions data.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD is forming a working group to address issues concerning the PSC program. Although a charter had not been finalized as of July 2016, the working group, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy), within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction, within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget), will coordinate with key stakeholders (e.g. Military Departments and Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Travel Management Office) on efforts to improve the completeness and consistency of data. DOD expects the effort under the working group to be completed in October 2017.
    Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of data on waivers used for PCS moves that occur prior to established time-on-station lengths. This action should include establishing guidance for the military services to collect, maintain, and report data on waivers for use in evaluating performance in meeting time-on-station requirements and addressing challenges related to the services' abilities to collect, maintain, and report waiver data.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD is forming a working group to address issues concerning the PSC program. Although a charter had not been finalized as of July 2016, the working group, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy), within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction, within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget), will coordinate with key stakeholders (e.g. Military Departments and Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Defense Travel Management Office) on efforts to improve the completeness and consistency of data. DOD expects the effort under the working group to be completed in October 2017.
    Director: Michael J. Sullivan
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's use of portfolio management for its weapon system investments and ensure that its investment plans are affordable, strategy-driven, balance near- and long-term needs, and leverage efforts across the military services, as well as to provide a solid foundation for future portfolio management efforts at the enterprise-level, the Secretary of Defense should revise DOD Directive 7045.2 on Capability Portfolio Management in accordance with best practices and promote the development of better tools to enable more integrated portfolio reviews and analyses of weapon system investments. Key elements of this recommendation would include (1) designating the Deputy Secretary of Defense or some appropriate delegate responsibility for implementing the policy and overseeing portfolio management in DOD; (2) requiring annual enterprise-level portfolio reviews that incorporate key portfolio review elements, including information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes; (3) directing the Joint Staff, AT&L, and CAPE to collaborate on their data needs and develop a formal implementation plan for meeting those needs either by building on the database the Joint Staff is developing for its analysis or investing in new analytical tools; and (4) incorporating lessons learned from military service portfolio reviews and portfolio management activities, such as using multiple risk and funding scenarios to assess needs and re-evaluate priorities.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation and has taken steps to implement one part of it. In October 2016, the Joint Staff informed GAO that it was updating two of its databases on military capabilities and capability requirements to provide DOD with better analytical tools to support portfolio management. The Department of Defense has not taken any other actions to implement this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's use of portfolio management for its weapon system investments and ensure that its investment plans are affordable, strategy-driven, balance near- and long-term needs, and leverage efforts across the military services, and to help ensure the military services' portfolio reviews are conducted regularly and effectively integrate information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget communities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to update or develop policies that require them to conduct annual portfolio reviews that incorporate key portfolio review elements, including information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken any actions necessary to implement it.
    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: Johana R. Ayers
    Phone: (202) 512-5741

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To obtain information useful to DLA's decision making regarding MRE inventory levels, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness should direct the Director, DLA, to request that the military services, as part of existing coordination efforts, share information on potential changes to MRE consumption and disposals that could affect future demand.

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

    Comments: In a June 2015 report to Congress, DLA stated that the agency and the services were sharing information on MRE demand and usage patterns. DOD officials stated in August 2016 that DLA is requesting more detailed information regarding MRE consumption and disposal data from the services for fiscal year 2016. As of September 2017, DLA had not provided documentation of information-sharing incorporating consumption and disposal data. We will continue to monitor DLA's actions on this recommendation.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    4 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To ensure that headquarters organizations are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and use the most cost-effective mix of personnel, and to better position DOD to identify opportunities for more efficient use of resources, the Secretary of Defense should conduct a systematic determination of personnel requirements for OSD, the Joint Staff, and the military services' secretariats and staff, which should include analysis of mission, functions, and tasks, and the minimum personnel needed to accomplish those missions, functions, and tasks.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation, but has not taken executive action. DOD is considering developing a manpower requirements validation process, but, as of March 2017, it had not conducted a systematic determination of workforce requirements. DOD partially concurred with GAO's January 2015 recommendation to conduct a systematic determination of workforce requirements, and in comments to the report, DOD noted that it would continue to use the processes and prioritization that are part of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process, and would also investigate other methods for aligning personnel to missions and priorities. However, DOD did not specify whether any of these actions would include a workforce analysis. In a December 2014 Resource Management Decision, the Deputy Chief Management Officer was directed to develop and implement a manpower requirements validation process for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Defense Agencies and Field Activities for military and civilian manpower, but this effort has not yet been completed. DOD indicated that it was taking action in response to GAO?s recommendation, but, as of March 2017, it had not provided documentation enabling GAO to determine what actions have been taken and the extent to which the recommendation has been implemented. Without a systematic determination of personnel requirements, DOD headquarters organizations may not be well positioned to identify opportunities for efficiencies and reduce the potential for headquarters-related growth. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: To ensure that headquarters organizations are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and use the most cost-effective mix of personnel, and to better position DOD to identify opportunities for more efficient use of resources, the Secretary of Defense should submit these personnel requirements, including information on the number of personnel within OSD and the military services' secretariats and staffs that count against the statutory limits, along with any applicable adjustments to the statutory limits, in the next Defense Manpower Requirements Report to Congress or through separate correspondence, along with any recommendations needed to modify the existing statutory limits.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it has ongoing efforts to refine and improve its reporting capabilities associated with these requirements, noting that the department has to update DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities before it can determine personnel requirements that count against the statutory limits. DOD also did not indicate in its letter whether the department would submit personnel requirements that count against the statutory limits in the Defense Manpower Requirements Report, as we recommend, once the Instruction is finalized. DOD noted in the spring of 2016 that it has ongoing efforts to refine and improve its reporting capabilities associated with personnel requirements. Additionally, DOD plans to begin an update to DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, in summer 2016. While DOD indicated that it was taking action in response to our recommendation, it has not provided documentation enabling us to determine what actions have been taken and the extent to which our recommendation has been implemented. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: To ensure that headquarters organizations are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and use the most cost-effective mix of personnel, and to better position DOD to identify opportunities for more efficient use of resources, the Secretary of Defense should establish and implement procedures to conduct periodic reassessments of personnel requirements within OSD and the military services' secretariats and staffs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation, but has not taken executive action. While DOD stated that it supports the intent of GAO's 2015 recommendation to conduct periodic reassessments of workforce requirements, as of March 2017, DOD had not taken any steps to address the recommendation despite a congressional requirement to do so. DOD partially concurred with GAO's January 2015 recommendation, but in comments to GAO's report, DOD noted that such periodic reassessments require additional resources and personnel, which would increase the number of personnel performing major DOD headquarters activities. DOD stated that it intended to examine the establishment of requirements determination processes across the department, to include the contractor workforce, but that such an examination would require a phased approach across a longer time frame. Based in part on GAO's work on management headquarters, including its January 2015 report, Congress directed DOD to develop a plan for implementing a periodic review and analysis of DOD's personnel requirements for management headquarters, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military service secretariats and staff, among others, in section 905 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.Buck McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The review is to include a description of current headquarters size, structure, and critical capabilities; an assessment of current systems to track how headquarters personnel are managed; and a proposed time line and resources required to implement a permanent periodic reassessment. However, as of November 2016, a DOD official stated DOD's plan to address the section 905 requirement had not been finalized, and DOD provided no estimated completion date for addressing this requirement. As of March 2017, DOD has not provided documentation of progress on this recommendation to GAO. Without periodic reassessments, it will likely be difficult for headquarters organizations to be well positioned to effectively identify opportunities for efficiencies and limit personnel growth. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: Congress should consider using the results of DOD's review of headquarters personnel requirements to reexamine the statutory limits. Such an examination could consider whether supporting organizations that perform headquarters functions should be included in statutory limits and whether the statutes on personnel limitations within the military services' secretariats and staffs should be amended to include a prohibition on reassigning headquarters-related functions elsewhere.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its comments on our report DOD noted that the department has to update DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities before it can determine personnel requirements that count against the statutory limits. Until DOD completes its update of the Instruction and provides Congress with information on the number personnel that count against the statutory limits, it will be difficult for Congress to take action. We will continue to monitor actions taken in response to this matter and will provide updated information as appropriate. As of May 2016, the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 includes a provision that would allow the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments to increase their number of military and civilian personnel by 15 percent in times of national emergency.
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD has the necessary information to determine the extent to which cost savings result from any future consolidation of training within METC or the Education and Training Directorate, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs should direct the Director of the DHA to develop baseline cost information as part of its metrics to assess achievement of cost savings.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
    Status: Open

    Comments: The House Report Accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, citing our work on this subject, required DOD to submit a report by January 31, 2015 detailing, among other things, an explanation of the purpose and goals of the medical education and training shared service with regard to its role in improving the cost efficiency of delivering training, including the challenges it will address, the practices it will put in place to address these challenges, and the resulting cost savings. However, as of September 2015, DOD has not submitted this report. Until DOD develops baseline cost information as part of its metrics to assess achievement of cost savings, this recommendation should remain open.
    Recommendation: To help realize the reform effort's goal of achieving cost savings, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs should direct the Director of the DHA to conduct a fully developed business case analysis for the Education and Training Directorate's reform effort. In this analysis the Director should (1) identify the cost-related problem that it seeks to address by establishing the Education and Training Directorate, (2) explain how the processes it has identified will address the costrelated problem, and (3) conduct and document an analysis of benefits, costs, and risks.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
    Status: Open

    Comments: The House Report Accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, citing our work on this subject, required DOD to submit a report by January 31, 2015 detailing, among other things, an explanation of the purpose and goals of the medical education and training shared service with regard to its role in improving the cost efficiency of delivering training, including the challenges it will address, the practices it will put in place to address these challenges, and the resulting cost savings. However, as of September 2015, DOD has not submitted this report. We reported in September 2015 that DOD has not yet presented a fully developed business case for its Medical Education and Training shared service. Until DOD addresses these concerns, this recommendation should remain open.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's process for setting its standard fuel price, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), to document its assumptions, including providing detailed rationale for how it estimates each of these components.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation but has not yet completed actions to fully address the recommendation. Consistent with our recommendation, DOD reevaluated its methodology for establishing the fiscal year 2017 standard price and documented parts of the methodology it used. Specifically, DOD detailed the various options it considered, the reasons why it chose the methodology it used, and the calculations it used to arrive at its estimated standard price in an internal Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) memorandum. However, DOD has not documented a process for establishing the standard price in three areas. First, DOD has not documented a formalized process that describes the steps it will take on an annual basis to determine the standard price for future fiscal years. Second, documentation detailing the options DOD considered and the rationale behind the methodology it chose is not available to Congress and its fuel customers. Third, DOD has not document the formal review and approval of the new methodology by senior Comptroller officials. The DOD Comptroller official who is responsible for managing the bulk fuel program stated that the department does not have a similar formal process for determining rates for other commodities and working capital funds. Therefore, the official stated that DOD does not want to make the bulk fuel standard price determination unique and apart from these other commodities. Because of concerns with the quality and transparency of information available to Congressional decision makers and department fuel customers concerning the methodology selected each year and its application to relevant data used in estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year, the Senate Armed Services Committee directed DOD to submit detailed guidance to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2017 that, among other aspects, requires documentation of the rationale for using one methodology over another for estimating the next fiscal year's fuel rate price, to include the limitations and assumptions of underlying data and establishing a timeline for developing annual estimated fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year. Documenting DOD's assumptions would provide greater transparency and clarify for fuel customers and decision makers regarding the process DOD uses to set the standard price.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    3 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction efforts, the Secretary of Defense should reevaluate the decision to focus reductions on management headquarters to ensure the department's efforts ultimately result in meaningful savings.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation, stating that this department-wide recommendation would garner greater savings but did not provide plans on how it planned to implement the recommendation. As of March 2017, DOD was more broadly defining management headquarters and applying headquarters reductions to a wider range of organizations, but the department has not fully taken steps to re-evaluate the decision to focus reductions on management headquarters, as GAO recommended in June 2014. In an August 2015 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense noted that a comprehensive definition of major headquarters activities had been established, and he directed DOD to update the department's guiding instruction on management headquarters and databases in an effort to more broadly account for headquarters resources. The memorandum also directed a 25 percent reduction across all appropriations funding from fiscal years 2017 through 2020 for these headquarters activities in lieu of the 20 percent requirement previously established by the department. As of September 2016, a DOD official stated the department had not completed efforts to rebaseline all of its components according to the comprehensive definition of major headquarters activities, which is needed to determine what elements of the components are considered headquarters so the department can apply relevant reductions to its budget submission. In addition, Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 requires that the Secretary of Defense implement a plan to ensure the department achieves not less than $10 billion in cost savings from the headquarters, administrative, and support activities of the department by fiscal year 2019. The legislation also directed the Secretary of Defense to modify DOD's headquarters reduction plans to ensure that it achieves savings in total funding for major headquarters activities of not less than 25 percent of the baseline amount in fiscal year 2016 by fiscal year 2020. In a March 2016 letter to the Armed Services Committee, DOD stated that it is focusing on broad efficiency initiatives beyond reductions in management headquarters. While DOD has taken some steps to achieve greater savings by applying additional headquarters reductions to more organizations, an official stated DOD will not document these actions until it submits its budget request for fiscal year 2018 in the spring of 2017. Until DOD documents the reductions based on its broader efficiency initiatives, GAO cannot determine if DOD has fully implemented this action. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction efforts, the Secretary of Defense should set a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for the reductions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation to set clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for the reductions. As of March 2017, DOD had taken some steps to set a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for headquarters reductions, but its efforts are not yet complete. In its response to GAO's recommendation, DOD recommended the use of the Future Years Defense Program data to set the baseline going forward. It stated that it was enhancing the data elements within DOD's Resource Data Warehouse to better identify management headquarters resources to facilitate tracking and reporting across the department. A December 2014 Resource Management Decision directed DOD components to identify and correct inconsistencies in major headquarters activities in authoritative DOD systems, and reflect those changes in the fiscal year 2017 program objective memorandums or submit them into the manpower management system. As of November 2016, a DOD official stated that the department had taken steps to use this definition as a baseline for headquarters reductions. However, according to this official, the department will not identify the baseline until it submits its budget request for fiscal year 2018 in the spring of 2017. Until DOD completes its efforts, savings to management headquarters will likely be difficult to track, and the department may not be assured that the reductions are achieved as intended. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction efforts, the Secretary of Defense should track reductions against the baselines in order to provide reliable accounting of savings and reporting to Congress.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation to set clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for the reductions. As of March 2017, DOD had taken steps to track its headquarters reductions efforts, but it continues to rely on self-reported baselines to account for headquarters savings and report to Congress. In its response to GAO's June 2014 report, DOD noted that by using the Future Years Defense Program data to set the baseline, it would be able to track and report changes to Congress. DOD further stated that it was enhancing data elements within DOD's Resource Data Warehouse to better identify management headquarters resources across the department. GAO agreed that these enhancements to data elements would increase DOD's capability to track and report management headquarters across the department, and thus, the Future Years Defense Program could be used to set baselines and track future reductions. In a December 2014 Resource Management Decision, DOD components were directed to identify and correct inconsistencies in major headquarters activities in authoritative DOD systems, to include the Future Years Defense Program and related databases, and reflect those changes when programming their fiscal year 2017-2021 resource allocations. In an August 2015 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense noted that a comprehensive definition of major headquarters activities had been established. As of November 2016, a DOD official stated that the department had taken steps to use this definition as a baseline for headquarters reductions. However, according to this official, the department will not identify the baseline until it submits its budget request for fiscal year 2018 in the spring of 2017. Until DOD completes its efforts, savings to management headquarters will likely be difficult to track, and the department may not be assured that the reductions are achieved as intended. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to develop guidance on transitioning enduring activities that have been funded with overseas contingency operations appropriations to DOD's base budget, including a time frame for this transition.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with our recommendation. In fiscal year 2016, the President's budget acknowledged that it was time to reconsider the appropriate financing mechanism for costs of overseas operations that are enduring and that beyond 2016 some costs would endure. It included a commitment for the Administration to propose a plan to transition all enduring costs currently funded in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget to the base budget with the transition beginning in 2017 and ending by 2020. However, the budget also noted this transition will not be possible if the sequester level discretionary spending caps remain in place. According to DOD officials, the plan envisioned by the Administration was not submitted since the fiscal year 2017 budget was developed consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Act, which increased the amount of enduring costs funded in the OCO budget. Furthermore, DOD officials stated that the current discretionary spending caps limit their ability to transition enduring costs currently funded in the OCO budget to the base budget.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better enable the military services to implement and institutionalize the roles and responsibilities of the PSM, the Secretary of Defense should direct the (USD[AT&L])--in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force--to issue clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and responsibilities of PSMs and the officials that assign them.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and has issued or updated various guidance documents regarding PSMs. For example, in November 2014, DOD issued a PSM position category description that included the PSM statutory responsibilities from section 2337 of title 10 of the U.S. Code. An update to DOD Instruction 5000.02 in January 2015 addressed program manager and PSM responsibilities with regard to the development and implementation of a product support strategy for a major weapon system. In February 2017, DOD updated a chapter of its Defense Acquisition Guidebook to provide additional guidance to PSMs for developing, documenting, and executing sustainment strategies. However, because the guidance is dispersed among several documents, it does not constitute centralized guidance on PSM roles and responsibilities. As a result, this recommendation remains open as of September 11, 2017.
    Recommendation: To help inform departmental and congressional oversight of the status of the PSM implementation and the influence, if any, that PSMs have in life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon systems, the Secretary of Defense should direct the (USD[AT&L])--in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force--to systematically collect and evaluate information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned major weapon systems.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and in April 2014 stated that it would develop a methodology and plan to address this recommendation. However, in July 2017, DOD officials said that, in considering how to implement this recommendation, they had concluded that it was not feasible to systematically collect and evaluate information on the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions. They cited the role of PSMs as advisors to the program managers, who have decision-making authority. In addition, they stated that it would be an administrative burden to collect information from PSMs. Further, DOD officials have stated that existing oversight of weapon system acquisitions--including approval of Life-Cycle Sustainment Plans, assessments of weapon system programs' status in achieving sustainment Key Performance Parameters/Key System Attributes, and reviews of operating and support costs--provides confidence that product support is being properly planned and managed. Officials also stated that the department's analysis of a limited number of nominations submitted for DOD's annual PSM Award serves as a qualitative barometer of the effectiveness of PSM involvement in individual programs. However, there is value in systematically collecting and evaluating this type of information, because it could provide insight into the contributions PSMs are making to weapon system sustainment planning and execution. While reviewing nominations for DOD's annual PSM Award provides some insight into a limited number of PSMs, it does not constitute a systematic evaluation. As a result, this recommendation remains open as of September 11, 2017.
    Recommendation: To better enable Army PSMs to fulfill their daily product support responsibilities, including planning and proactively managing sustainment efforts for their assigned weapon systems, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army--in coordination with the (ASA[ALT]) and the Commander of the AMC--to review the current process for requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major weapon systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs have greater visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon systems will receive including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the extent possible.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and in 2015, officials stated that the Army would conduct a pilot initiative to provide greater visibility to PSMs prior to the year of execution of funds for their assigned weapon systems. However, due to competing Army requirements for available resourcing, the Army subsequently discontinued its plan to conduct this pilot initiative. According to officials, the Army developed and in 2017 began using a funding transparency metric during the joint acquisition and sustainment weapon system reviews held by the Army Materiel Command and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. The goal of the funding transparency metric is to improve the alignment of requirements and funding in the future by comparing the requirements--which were previously submitted by the Program Executive Offices for their weapon system program offices--to the sustainment funding provided by the Army Materiel Command. The Army has taken some actions to address this recommendation, but it is too early to evaluate the results of these actions because the funding transparency metric is intended to influence future funding decisions. As a result, this recommendation remains open as of September 11, 2017.
    Director: Debra Draper
    Phone: (202) 512-7114

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Director of the Defense Health Agency to enhance existing guidance for the TROs to include more specificity on assessing nonenrolled beneficiaries' access to care. Specifically, the guidance should contain criteria for analyzing and interpreting the nonenrolled beneficiary and civilian provider surveys' results and the beneficiary population sizing model to facilitate a more rigorous and consistent approach across regions for identifying locations with potential access problems and determining whether actions should be taken.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In April 2016, DHA informed us that it has taken action to ensure a consistent approach across the regions for identifying locations with potential access problems and determining whether actions should be taken. Specifically, the TROs agreed in April 2014 to utilize the congressionally directed Survey of Civilian Provider Acceptance of, and Beneficiary Access to TRICARE Standard and Extra survey results as the source to identify areas of low awareness, acceptance and access scores. Once an area has been confirmed as an area of low awareness, acceptance and access, the SME will work with the respective managed care support contractor to develop an improvement action plan. In addition, to standardize analysis and provide for more specificity, in May 2014 the three TROs agreed upon a standardized Beneficiary Population Sizing Model (BPSM), an analytical tool to monitor access to care and beneficiary satisfaction for Standard beneficiaries outside PSAs. The standardized BPSM was implemented in the last TRO TRICARE Standard annual brief to the DHA Deputy Director in January 2016. DHA has noted that they took these actions as a result of our recommendation. Although they have taken these actions, we are awaiting further information regarding whether they enhanced existing guidance for the TROs to include this additional specificity on assessing nonenrolled beneficiaries' access to care. We will update this recommendation once we obtain additional information from DHA.
    Director: Belva Martin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve reporting of federal procurement data and strengthen oversight of contracts awarded on the basis of an unusual and compelling urgency, the Secretaries of Defense and State and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development should develop an oversight mechanism when the cumulative value of noncompetitive contracts awarded on the basis of unusual and compelling urgency increases considerably beyond the initial contract award value.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In April 2015, the Acting Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy issued a memorandum instructing contracting officers to notify management when the cumulative dollar value of a contract awarded on the basis of urgency increases beyond the initial value at award. Further, the memorandum instructs components to establish an oversight mechanism to ensure the appropriate approval level is obtained. This memorandum was incorporated into the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations by reference. As of August 2017, the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy office had not followed up to determine whether components had implemented this recommendation. We will continue to follow up with DOD to determine how and whether the oversight mechanisms were established at the component level.
    Director: Zina Merritt
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide greater assurance of the accuracy of manpower requirements reports produced by AWPS for use at Army industrial sites, the Secretary of the Army should direct AMC--with assistance as needed from USAMAA--to submit AWPS to USAMAA for review and validation as a manpower requirements determination tool, in accordance with Army regulations.

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

    Comments: In commenting on the final report, the Army concurred and stated that AWPS was developed to address deficiencies in the Army's manpower requirements determination process by capturing and using the actual hours of the work performed in previous periods to project future requirements. The Army also stated that an integrated AWPS/LMP solution may result in a different manpower predictive tool that must be validated through USAMAA, and that it is important the Army focus on developing a business case analysis to include AWPS functionality into the Army's enterprise resource planning systems. In December 2014, the Under Secretary of the Army directed the Commanding General, AMC, to complete the overlap assessment between AWPS and LMP and to submit the approved manpower requirements determination approach to USAMAA for validation. In November 2015, the Army reported that AMC will not submit AWPS to USAMAA for review and validation because additional funding would be needed to modify AWPS to meet USAMAA requirements for a manpower requirements determination tool, and AMC decided not to make those modifications. Furthermore, the Army also reported that, based on its overlap assessment of AWPS and LMP, it plans to integrate AWPS functionality into LMP. Specifically, the Army plans to migrate all AWPS functions related to the collection and reporting of manpower resources executed in support of approved work at the AMC industrial base sites. As of March 2017, Army officials confirmed that the Army will not submit AWPS to USAMAA for review and validation, and that preparations for integrating AWPS functionality into LMP are ongoing.
    Director: Sullivan, Michael J
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve tracking and reporting of technology transition outcomes for SBIR projects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Small Business Programs to establish a common definition of technology transition for all SBIR projects to support annual reporting requirements.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) officials stated they have come up with a standard definition of technology transition as the production and delivery (whether by the originating party or by others) of products, processes, technologies, or services for sale to or use by the Federal Government or a Contractor in support of a Government requirement. Despite repeated attempted at obtaining documentary evidence of this action, we have not received any response from DOD and until documentation is provided this recommendation will remain open.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that OSD, the military services, and congressional decision makers have a comprehensive understanding of whether ROTC programs are achieving desired results in a cost-effective and efficient manner, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military services, to establish a systematic process to routinely evaluate ROTC program performance that includes establishing performance measures that are clearly defined and include cost components.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2016, this recommendation is addressed in the current working draft of Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, "Senior Reserves Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Programs." A joint Services and DOD working group has finalized updates addressing this recommendation in the draft instruction, but DOD anticipates formal coordination will be delayed until after the 2017 change in the Presidential Administration. This recommendation will remain open until the DoDI addressing this recommendation has been finalized and published.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that OSD, the military services, and congressional decision makers have a comprehensive understanding of whether ROTC programs are achieving desired results in a cost-effective and efficient manner, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military services, to establish a systematic process to routinely evaluate ROTC program performance that includes requiring routine evaluations of ROTC programs that measure progress against the strategic goals and objectives of ROTC programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2016, this recommendation is addressed in the current working draft of Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, "Senior Reserves Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Programs." A joint Services and DOD working group has finalized updates addressing this recommendation in the draft instruction, but DOD anticipates formal coordination will be delayed until after the 2017 change in the Presidential Administration. This recommendation will remain open until the DoDI addressing this recommendation has been finalized and published.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that OSD, the military services, and congressional decision makers have a comprehensive understanding of whether ROTC programs are achieving desired results in a cost-effective and efficient manner, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military services, to establish a systematic process to routinely evaluate ROTC program performance that includes using the performance information resulting from ROTC program evaluations to assess and document the need for the existing number of units,

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2016, this recommendation is addressed in the current working draft of Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, "Senior Reserves Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Programs." A joint Services and DOD working group has finalized updates addressing this recommendation in the draft instruction, but DOD anticipates formal coordination will be delayed until after the 2017 change in the Presidential Administration. The Services have reviewed and adjusted their current procedures and metrics to better measure and evaluate their ROTC programs prior to the projected DoDI publication date. This recommendation will remain open until the DoDI addressing this recommendation has been finalized and published.
    Recommendation: To help improve the oversight and accountability of the military services' ROTC programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to reexamine and clarify DOD Instruction 1215.08 to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities for oversight of ROTC programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2016, this recommendation is addressed in the current working draft of Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, "Senior Reserves Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Programs." A joint Services and DOD working group has finalized updates addressing this recommendation in the draft instruction, but DOD anticipates formal coordination will be delayed until after the 2017 change in the Presidential Administration. This recommendation will remain open until the DoDI addressing this recommendation has been finalized and published.
    Recommendation: To help improve the oversight and accountability of the military services' ROTC programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to coordinate with the military services to ensure that service ROTC guidance aligns with the updated DOD instruction.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2016, this recommendation is addressed in the current working draft of Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, "Senior Reserves Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Programs." A joint Services and DOD working group has finalized updates addressing this recommendation in the draft instruction, but DOD anticipates formal coordination will be delayed until after the 2017 change in the Presidential Administration. The Services have reviewed and adjusted their current procedures and metrics to better measure and evaluate their ROTC programs prior to the projected DoDI publication date. This recommendation will remain open until the DoDI addressing this recommendation has been finalized and published.
    Recommendation: To help improve the oversight and accountability of the military services' ROTC programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military services, a strategy to periodically communicate with Congress and other key stakeholders on ROTC program performance.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2016, this recommendation is addressed in the current working draft of Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1215.08, "Senior Reserves Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Programs." A joint Services and DOD working group has finalized updates addressing this recommendation in the draft instruction, but DOD anticipates formal coordination will be delayed until after the 2017 change in the Presidential Administration. This recommendation will remain open until the DoDI addressing this recommendation has been finalized and published.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3604

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide decision makers with more-complete information on the planned implementation, management, and oversight of DOD's newly created DHA, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to develop and present to Congress a comprehensive timeline that includes interim milestones for all reform goals that could be used to show implementation progress.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2015, DOD has not submitted a comprehensive timeline that includes interim milestones for all reform goals. Further, as we reported in September 2015, DOD's plan for assessing the personnel requirements of the DHA lacks a detailed timeline with milestones and interim steps. Until DOD develops a comprehensive timeline for its reform, this recommendation should remain open. June 2017 Update: The DHA strategic plan/CONOPS showing a comprehensive timeline for all of its reform goals has yet to be released.
    Recommendation: To provide decision makers with more-complete information on the planned implementation, management, and oversight of DOD's newly created DHA, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to monitor implementation costs to assess whether the shared-services projects are on track to achieve projected net cost savings or if corrective actions are needed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As we reported in September 2015, DOD has taken some action on this recommendation for 8 of its 10 shared services. The DHA's internal leadership briefings now identify the major types of implementation costs where relevant, or otherwise address their potential impact. For example, information technology costs are identified as one primary type of costs for the Health Information Technology and Medial Logistics shared services, while contract costs are identified for the Budget and Resource Management, Medical Logistics, and Health Information Technology shared services. By identifying the major types of implementation costs, decision makers are better able to gauge the sensitivity of areas of uncertainty as they make decisions concerning future investments in shared services. MAY 2016 UPDATE: DHA reported and we verified financial savings of $722 million for FY14 and FY15 due to shared services implementation. June 2017 Update: DHA reported and we verified financial savings of $686.6 million for FY 16 due to shared services implementation.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To guide the implementation of actions DOD identified in its study on JPME, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should direct the Director for Joint Force Development to establish well-defined timeframes for conducting follow-on actions, coordinate with all stakeholders, and identify key officials responsible for implementing the study's recommendations to help ensure the usefulness, timeliness, and implementation of any actions DOD takes in response to the findings and recommendations contained in its study.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To guide the implementation of actions DOD identified in its study on JPME, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should direct the Director for Joint Force Development to assess the costs of implementing recommendations made and efficiencies to be derived from the recommendations in order to implement DOD's recommendations in a cost-effective manner.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to further develop guidance for cost elements that users have identified as challenging to calculate, such as general and administrative, overhead, advertising and recruiting, and training.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office is updating fiscal year 2017 estimates in its Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) system to reflect separate officer and enlisted training costs. If more specific cost estimates are required, users of FCoM are directed to cost estimating tools operated by the military departments.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to develop business rules for estimating the full cost of National Guard and Reserve personnel.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report in Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, a cost estimating function for Reserve Component personnel far exceeds the combination of variables for developing active component and DOD civilian cost estimates. Due to the scope of the Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) contract, OSD(CAPE) has not adopted this recommendation in terms of a web-based application. However, OSD(CAPE) intends to address general business rules for Reserve Component cost estimates in the next DoDI revision.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, in coordination with the department's Office of the Actuary and appropriate federal actuarial offices, to reevaluate the inclusion and quantification of pension, retiree health care costs, and other relevant costs of an actuarial nature and make revisions as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, OSD(CAPE) has reviewed the inclusion of payments that the government makes to retirement and health benefits. All identified costs that are attributable to current retirees and past service of active civilian and military personnel, such as unfunded liabilities, are being revised in the cost estimating guidelines. OSD(CAPE) intends to incorporate these changes in the next DoDI revision and coordinate a review with the Office of the DoD Actuaty.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's ability to estimate contractor support costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, consistent with established practices for developing credible cost estimates, to research the data sources it is currently using and reassess its contractor support data sources for use when determining contractor support costs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilian and Contractors, the department's efforts to improve data sources are ongoing.
    Director: Pickup, Sharon L
    Phone: (202) 512-9619

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve decision makers' abilities to make fully informed decisions concerning whether training requirements can be met with live and simulation-based training and determine optimal mixes of live and simulation-based training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop outcome-oriented performance metrics that can be used to assess the impact of simulation-based training on improving the performance or proficiency of servicemembers and units.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of 18 Aug 2014, the Army and Marine Corps actions for this recommendation are currently ongoing and the recommendation status currently remains open. On 14 June 2014, the DOD Inspector General reported in the Defense Audit Management Information System that "the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense(Readiness) developed a decision algorithm to determine which military tasks could be taught virtually and which military tasks should only be taught in classroom or field environments (i.e., live). The algorithm was provided to the Services for peer-review and possible implementation. The Army is reviewing its progressive training models through a process called Training Summit IV (TS IV). These models establish how virtual and constructive based training is integrated with live training to optimize training readiness. The TS IV will include training model review by proponent schools, as well as a cross-section of unit commanders and leaders. This effort will be completed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and presented for validation and G-3/5/7 approval at the Army Training General Officer Steering Committee in November 2014. Also, the Marine Corps initiated a request for an internal servicewide study of existing and potential approaches to this topic (4th Quarter FY 2013). The initial focus is in determining how metrics can be better used to assess the impact of simulation based on meeting Marine Corps Training Standards. Furthermore, a targeted study began in the 1st Quarter FY 2014 and is focused initially on enhancing the methodology for assessing individual based simulators against Training and Readiness (T&R) Standards. In FY 2015, the study results will shape policy on how future T&R manuals will identify the appropriateness of simulators and simulations for training."
    Recommendation: To improve decision makers' abilities to make fully informed decisions concerning whether training requirements can be met with live and simulation-based training and determine optimal mixes of live and simulation-based training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop a methodology--to include identifying the costs that should be included and how these costs should be captured--for comparing the costs associated with the use of live and simulation-based training.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of 18 Aug 2014, the Army and Marine Corps actions for this recommendation are currently ongoing and the recommendation status currently remains open. On 14 June 2014, the DOD Inspector General reported in the Defense Audit Management Information System that "the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) has coordinated with the Army and Marine Corps to identify standard approaches to capture costs and cost benefit analysis that could be used DoD-wide. The Army has undertaken a "cost of training" analysis that is an on-going action to determine cost of readiness and/or training. One area of concentration is to look at the "Other Burdened Resources Required for Training Readiness." This area is further broken down into two areas: Investment/Modernization and Installation Services. The Investment/Modernization area will look at Non-System Training Aids, Devices, Simulators and Simulations while Installation Services will look at Post Deployment Software Support. In addition, the Army is gathering data to validate an existing model developed by the Simulations to Mission Command Interoperability Director (Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation) for the Value of Simulation Study consisting of five phases: Phase one focused on development of a working methodology to assess both quantitative and qualitative value of simulations used to support collective training (completed). Phase two is currently gathering data for model validation. Phase three will be an expansion to other simulation capabilities. Phase four is data gathering and validation. Phase five is expanded testing/methodology use case study/validation for return on investment use. The Marine Corps established a study, described in response to Recommendation 1, which will evaluate and propose the initial cost factors not currently captured during Programming yet would be relevant in determining the appropriate mix of live and simulated training. The initial results are expected in FY 2015."
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance DOD's capability and capacity to accomplish the missing persons accounting mission, and to clarify the specific roles and responsibilities of the accounting community members to help minimize unnecessary overlap and disagreement among community members, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force and direct the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, or the appropriate departmental entity in light of any reorganization, to negotiate a new memorandum of agreement between the Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory and Joint Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command (JPAC). The memorandum should specify which conflicts' artifacts JPAC should send to the Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory for analysis, the type of artifacts sent, and the priorities according to which the Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory should analyze resolved cases.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: Officials from the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) stated that the Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory (LSEL) and the former JPAC Central Identification Laboratory (CIL) have both been absorbed into DPAA, so there is no need for a separate memorandum between the two entities. We believe that DPAA should take actions that would meet the intent of our recommendation by delineating the roles and responsibilities within DPAA of the former LSEL and CIL laboratories. As of September 2017, DPAA has taken some actions to clarify which conflicts and types of artifacts the different laboratories are responsible for working on. For example, according to DPAA officials, DPAA has made progress in bringing the former LSEL up to the standard of the other DPAA laboratories by developing an evidence control system and a formal inventory. In addition, the DPAA laboratories have updated their standard operating procedures to specify the format and procedures for writing life science equipment material evidence reports, which should address the concerns identified in our report related to the length and utility of these reports prepared by one of the laboratories. However, a DPAA official stated that DPAA is rethinking how different laboratory functions should be performed and where those capabilities should reside, and that a decision about the future course of action would likely be made in fiscal year 2018. Until the responsibilities of the different DPAA laboratories are clarified with regard to which conflicts and types of artifacts the different laboratories are responsible for working on, the potential for inefficient and ineffective interactions between the different laboratories that we identified in our 2013 report may continue.
    Recommendation: To enhance DOD's capability and capacity to accomplish the missing persons accounting mission, and to more efficiently and effectively develop the capability and capacity to account for missing persons, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), or the appropriate departmental entity in light of any reorganization, to ensure that the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO), in coordination with all members of the accounting community, develop personnel files for all unaccounted for persons as required by statute, in order to help avoid potential overlap or unnecessary duplication of effort and to ensure better communication among community members with respect to missing persons cases.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, this recommendation has not been implemented and remains open. The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) is taking actions to develop case files for all persons who are unaccounted for. As of May 2017, DPAA officials said that DPAA had completed the case files for all individuals from the Vietnam War; about 80 percent of the files for individuals from the Korean War; and about 60 percent of the files for individuals from World War II. The officials said that DPAA has an ongoing effort to develop a case management system and scanning project that will serve as the basis for the required personnel or case files, but they have faced funding challenges that have hindered their ability to finish this project. They said that if DPAA can get the necessary funding, they will be able to complete development of all of the files in about 2 years. They said that with a lower level of funding, it will take more time than that 2 year estimate, and potentially could cost more money over time. Until personnel files for all unaccounted-for missing persons are developed and made readily accessible, as required by law, the community?s efforts to collaborate on cases will be hindered by a lack of information visibility among community members.
    Director: Dinapoli, Timothy J
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better position DOD to determine whether its actions have improved service acquisition, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the military departments' senior services managers, should identify baseline data on the status of service acquisition, in part, by using budget and spending data and leveraging its ongoing efforts to gauge the effects of its actions to improve service acquisition.

    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: DOD concurred with our recommendation and is in the process of developing baseline data on the current status of its service acquisitions. In July 2014, DOD issued its annual Performance of the Defense Acquisition report. For the first time, this report included information on its contracted services, such obligations for each service portfolio group, competition rates, and small business participation information. DOD expects to develop service acquisition related goals and metrics in 2017 from which it can develop additional baseline data.
    Recommendation: To better position DOD to determine whether its actions have improved service acquisition, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the military departments' senior services managers, should develop specific goals associated with their actions to improve service acquisition.

    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: DOD concurred with our recommendation and is in the process of developing service acquisition goals and metrics as well as an action plan for improving service acquisition. As of February 2017, DOD began a review of internal guidance that will include an analysis of the roles, responsibilities, authorities, goals, metrics, and structure associated with managing service acquisitions.
    Recommendation: To better position DOD to determine whether its actions have improved service acquisition, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the military departments' senior services managers, should establish metrics to assess progress in meeting these goals.

    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: DOD concurred with our recommendation and is in the process of developing service acquisition goals and metrics as well as an action plan for improving service acquisition. As of February 2017, DOD began a review of internal guidance that will include an analysis of the roles, responsibilities, authorities, goals, metrics, and structure associated with managing service acquisitions.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3604

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure DOD's workforce mix guidance reflects the current statutory requirements for total force management policy set forth in 10 U.S.C. 129a as well as the regulatory requirements set forth in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's September 2011 policy letter, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to revise DOD's existing workforce policies and procedures to address the (1) determination of the appropriate workforce mix, and (2) identification of critical functions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated in its agency comments that DOD Directive 1100.4. was undergoing revision and entering the formal issuance process for signature by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Further, DOD stated that the updated directive would authorize and direct the revision of the instruction. However, as of August 2017, a DOD official stated that revisions to DOD Directive 1100.4 and DOD Instruction 1100.22 continue to be worked within the Department. Changes enacted through the most recent National Defense Authorization Act required a reconsideration of numerous aspects of the draft directive. Further, the official stated that the department was required to develop an overarching workforce rationalization strategy and that the furthering of this strategy will likewise impact the draft policies.
    Recommendation: Until such time that DOD is able to accurately project contractor FTE estimates it presents in budget submissions using the inventories and required reviews, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to include an explanation in annual budget exhibits of the methodology used to project contractor FTE estimates and any limitations of that methodology or the underlying information to which the methodology is applied.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated in its agency comments that it will strengthen the annual guidance as improvements are made in the inventory of contracted services. Further, DOD stated that if a component's methodology deviates from the process defined in the annual guidance, a footnote explaining the deviation will be included in the contracted services section of the Operation and Maintenance Overview book within the budget. As of August 2017, the department could not provide any evidence of steps taken in response to this recommendation.
    Director: Melvin, Valerie C
    Phone: (202) 512-6304

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To effectively implement key components of DOD's business systems modernization program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to define by when and how the department plans to develop an architecture that would extend to all defense components and include, among other things, (a) information about the specific business systems that support business enterprise architecture (BEA) business activities and related system functions; (b) business capabilities for the Hire-to-Retire and Procure-to-Pay business processes; and (c) sufficient information about business activities to allow for more effective identification of potential overlap and duplication.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) had taken steps to address the recommendation; however, more steps are needed to meet its intent. For example, as of July 2015, the department had taken steps to improve the integration of business enterprise architecture (BEA) information with other existing information. This integration was intended to allow DOD to identify information such as mapping of existing business systems to individual BEA system functions. In addition, in January 2017, the department issued a plan to improve the usefulness of the architecture by delivering three major capabilities, including the ability to conduct process and system reviews within and across domains, which can help better identify potential duplication and overlap, by January 2017. The plan also included other activities that may help support the identification of duplication and overlap, such as developing a federated ontology for BEA data structures, migrating legacy architecture data into the federated ontology, and defining requirements to enable extensible data structures for future updates, by June 2016. However, the department has not developed the ontology or delivered the capability to conduct process and system reviews within and across domains. An official from the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer stated in September 2017 that the BEA ontology work is ongoing and that a plan for moving the existing BEA content to the new framework is in development. The official also stated that delivery of the capability to conduct process and system reviews within and across domains is now planned for June 2018, depending on contract award. However, DOD has not updated its BEA improvement plan to reflect the revised delivery dates. In addition, the department also has not identified the business capabilities associated with the Hire-to-Retire and Procure-to-Pay business processes. The department continues to update its business architecture, but it has not demonstrated that it has defined by when and how it plans to develop an architecture that would extend to all defense components and include business capabilities for the Hire-to-Retire and Procure-to-Pay business processes.
    Recommendation: To effectively implement key components of DOD's business systems modernization program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to ensure that the functional strategies include all of the critical elements identified in DOD investment management guidance, including performance measures to determine progress toward achieving the goals that incorporate all of the attributes called for in the department's guidance.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) had taken some steps to address the intent of this recommendation. However, more remains to be done to fully address the intent of the recommendation. For example, we reported in July 2015 that the department established performance measures in its functional strategies that addressed at least some of the five attributes called for in DOD guidance. In particular, all of the fiscal year 2015 functional strategies identified examples of quantitative metrics. However, not all functional strategies identified metrics that addressed the other attributes. As of August 2017, this continues to be the case. For example, the fiscal year 2017 human resources management functional strategy did not address prior year business outcomes and initiatives progress, as required by the February 2015 investment management guidance.
    Recommendation: To effectively implement key components of DOD's business systems modernization program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to select and control its mix of investments in a manner that best supports mission needs by (a) documenting a process for evaluating portfolio performance that includes the use of actual versus expected performance data and predetermined thresholds; (b) ensuring that portfolio assessments are conducted in key areas identified in our IT investment management framework: benefits attained; current schedule; accuracy of project reporting; and risks that have been mitigated, eliminated, or accepted to date; and (c) ensuring that the documents provided to the Defense Business Council as part of the investment management process include critical information for conducting all assessments.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of Defense had not addressed the recommendation. In February 2017, the department issued DOD Instruction 5000.75, Business Systems Requirements and Acquisition, to assist in managing defense business systems. Further, in April 2017, the department updated its investment management guidance. However, neither the instruction nor the revised guidance call for a process for evaluating portfolio performance that includes the use of actual versus expected performance data and predetermined thresholds. The instruction and the revised guidance also do not specify a process for ensuring that portfolio assessments are conducted in key areas identified in our information technology investment management framework: benefits attained; current schedule; accuracy of project reporting; and risks that have been mitigated, eliminated, or accepted to date. Further, the department has not demonstrated that it has ensured that documents provided to the Defense Business Council (i.e., the investment review board) include critical information for conducting assessments, such as information about system scalability to support additional users or new features in the future and cost in relationship to return on investment.
    Recommendation: To effectively implement key components of DOD's business systems modernization program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to implement and use the BEA and business process reengineering compliance assessments more effectively to support organizational transformation efforts by (a) disclosing relevant information about known weaknesses, such as BEA and business process reengineering compliance weaknesses for systems that were not certified or certified with qualifications in annual reports to Congress; (b) establishing milestones by which selected validations of BEA compliance assertions are to be completed; and (c) ensuring that appropriate business process reengineering assertions have been completed on all investments submitted for the fiscal year 2014 certification reviews prior to the certification of funds.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to address the intent of the recommendation; however, more remains to be done. For example, the 2015 Congressional Report on Defense Business Operations included some information consistent with our recommendation. In particular, it contained information about weaknesses for systems that were certified with qualifications. The report stated that the department conditionally approved 29 military department and 30 defense agency requests pending Defense Business Council (DBC) approval of their problem statements. The report also cited the specific systems that were conditionally approved pending approval of their problem statements. In addition, in February 2017, the department issued an instruction (DOD Instruction 5000.75, Business Systems Requirements and Acquisition). The instruction requires that the certifying official verify that a capability is aligned with the business enterprise architecture (BEA) prior to a decision to proceed with a solutions analysis phase. The instruction also requires the certifying official to validate that sufficient business process reengineering (BPR) has been conducted to determine that a business system is required. The Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) explained in August 2017 that the office reviews BEA compliance assertions in BEA compliance reporting tools, and if any issues are found with the assertions they are documented in investment decision memos. In addition, for BPR assertions, the office stated that DCMO portfolio leads review the assertions to determine if a system has required documentation. For those that have no plan of action or BPR assertions, according to the office, the DCMO team works with the domain or portfolio owners to ensure that a plan of action is documented. However, the department did not provide evidence to demonstrate that BEA assertions have been validated for selected investments or that BPR assertions have been validated for all its investments as part of its last annual certification process.
    Recommendation: To effectively implement key components of DOD's business systems modernization program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to develop a skills inventory, needs assessment, gap analysis, and plan to address identified gaps as part of a strategic approach to human capital planning for the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) had not addressed this recommendation; and the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) stated that it does not plan to address it. Specifically, it said that the department did not concur with the recommendation, and that, further, it had been overcome by other events. According to DOD officials, the recommendation has been overcome by several reorganizational changes, including one based on reviews of the department's business processes and systems. The Office of the DCMO stated that the department used a skills inventory, needs assessment, and gap analysis to do these reorganizations, and there are no open positions beyond those occurring from normal attrition. However, the Office of the DCMO did not provide evidence of the skills inventory, needs assessment and gap analysis that it said it used in its reorganizations. We still consider the recommendation to be valid and will continue to monitor its implementation as part of our periodic assessments of DOD efforts to manage its defense business systems.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate authority to ensure that complete documentation, such as root cause analyses, assessments of existing interfaces for reuse opportunities, and performance metrics related to the reengineering efforts, is provided as part of the fiscal year 2014 certification and approval process for the Integrated Personnel and Pay System - Army (IPPS-A), Integrated Personnel and Pay System - Navy (IPPS-N), Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF-IPPS), and Integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR) investments.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) had taken some steps to address the intent of this recommendation, and other aspects of the recommendation have been overcome by events. However, more work is needed to demonstrate that the department has more fully addressed the intent of our recommendation. For example, in July 2015, we reported that the department demonstrated that it had completed documentation, such as root cause analyses, assessments of existing interfaces for reuse opportunities, and performance metrics related to the reengineering efforts, and that the documentation was provided as part of the certification and approval process for the Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System investment. However, since we made the recommendation, the department has changed its approach to evaluating business process reengineering for its defense business systems. As a result of this change, the department requires different documentation than the documentation required when we prepared our report. The department now requires business process reengineering to be documented in a problem statement. In particular, the December 2014 DOD problem statement guidance requires a description of and validation that a thorough review of the business process reengineering was conducted, and no longer specifically requires root cause analyses, assessments of existing interfaces for re-use opportunities, or performance metrics related to reengineering efforts. Regarding the Integrated Personnel and Pay System - Army, in September 2017, the department demonstrated that it had completed a March 2016 description of its business process reengineering efforts and provided supporting documentation as part of its review and certification process. However, as of September 2017, the department had not demonstrated that complete documentation related to reengineering efforts has been submitted as part of its annual certification and approval process for the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Navy (IPPS-N) investment. According to an Official from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy (Management), the department expects the IPPS-N problem statement to be complete by the end of September 2017. Regarding the Integrated Electronic Health Record investment, the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer stated that the department does not plan to conduct business process reengineering because the investment is now in sustainment, and the department does not require business process reengineering for systems in sustainment.
    Director: Mctigue Jr, James R
    Phone: (202) 512-7968

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the ability of the Army and local communities to manage future base closures, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to issue, consistent with DOD guidance, guidance on specific levels of maintenance to be followed in the event of a base closure based on the probable reuse of the facilities.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In DOD's comments on our report, it stated that it concurred with our recommendation and that the Army agrees to publish property maintenance guidance prior to closing installations in the event of future base closures. In June 2016, DOD stated that the Department is prohibited by Congressional/statutory language to plan for or implement future BRAC execution.
    Recommendation: To improve the ability of DOD and the local communities to respond to future growth actions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to consider developing a procedure for collecting service members' physical addresses while stationed at an installation, annually updating this information, and sharing aggregate information with community representatives relevant for local planning decisions, such as additional population per zip code, consistent with privacy and force protection concerns.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it agrees that information pertaining to the physical location of installation personnel helps affected communities plan for housing, schools, transportation and other off-post requirements in support of installations. It further stated that existing policy requires the military departments to provide planning information, including base personnel, to states and communities to support the establishment or expansion of a military base. In the event of future basing decisions affecting local communities, DOD stated that it will work with the military departments to assess and determine the best means to obtain, aggregate, and distribute this information to help ensure adequate planning information is made available. In June 2016, DOD stated that the Department is prohibited by Congressional/statutory language to plan for or implement future BRAC execution.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to consider creating or designating a civilian position at the installation level to be the focal point and provide continuity for community interaction for future growth installations and to consider expanding this position to all installations. This position may be a collateral duty.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially agreed with this recommendation. It stated that it agrees with the need for a designated position at the installation level to work with the community and will ensure this requirement is being met through current practices and in accordance with each military department's personnel system. In many of the growth impacted communities, installation officials serve as ex-officio members of the community's growth management organization and relevant installation staff, including those engaged with public works, housing, education, and land use planning, and coordinate as needed with their civilian community counterparts. In July 2015, DOD stated that in the event the Department of Defense proceeds with future realignments that could result in a reduced footprint, there are provisions for Base Transition Coordinators (BTCs) to be designated as a liaison with the affected community. In the event these future realignments result in an expanded footprint or personnel growth, the Department would consider this recommendation at that time. In June 2016, DOD stated that the Department is prohibited by Congressional/statutory language to plan for or implement future BRAC execution.
    Director: Sullivan, Michael J
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve visibility and management of the department's efforts to transition technologies to support the needs of the warfighter, the Secretary of Defense should require that all technology transition programs track and measure project outcomes, to include not only whether technologies transitioned to an intended user but also the longer-term impact of whether the technologies benefitted acquisition programs or military users in the field.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on GAO's recommendation, DOD indicated it would continue to anecdotally measure the results of technology investments for 3, 5, or even 10 years after investment and highlight the long-term benefits, as needed, to validate the investment levels associated with the research and development programs. However, the department did not plan to formally require its technology transition programs to track and measure project outcomes, noting concern that tracking and measuring outcomes for hundreds of technology projects would be a labor-intensive and very time-consuming process. DOD's own tracking of its response to this recommendation indicates no planned action and considers the recommendation closed. Nevertheless, GAO continues to monitor the department's activities related to technology transition, as several ongoing DOD efforts may eventually sufficiently address the intent of this recommendation. For example, DOD continues to pursue improvement to technology transition as part of its Better Buying Power 3.0 initiative. This includes a best practices handbook that is expected to address ways to increase collaboration between DOD and commercial industry and, among other things, support technology transition. In August 2017, the Defense Laboratory Office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering confirmed that the handbook, which was stated in summer 2016 to be nearly finalized, stalled out in its completion for an unknown reason and remains on hold. Interest remains in completing it but no definitive plans exist for when that may occur. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to track and measure technology transition outcomes, particularly as they relate to completing the handbook, as previous indications were that the handbook could potentially fulfill the intent of our recommendation.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure the department maintains its critical skills and competencies, when planning for and implementing future civilian workforce actions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to involve functional community managers and to the extent possible, use information from gap assessments of its critical skills and competencies as they are completed to make informed decisions for possible future reductions or justify the size of the force that it has.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, the Associate Director, Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policies; OUSD(P&R), stated that the Department has taken some actions and that there are ongoing efforts in this area. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.
    Director: Sherrill, Andrew
    Phone: (202) 512-7215

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance collaboration among the various entities involved in delivering employment services to military spouses and to better monitor the effectiveness of these services, the Secretary of Defense should consider incorporating key practices to sustain and enhance collaboration when developing and finalizing its spouse employment guidance, such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities and developing compatible policies and procedures.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. While DOD said it would incorporate collaboration practices as the Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) program matures, it has already taken initial action in this area. For example, DOD noted that it created the advisory group, as well as partnerships developed with various organizations. These are laudable efforts, however, they do not directly address the specifics of our recommendation to develop and finalize guidance for spouse employment programs. Incorporating key collaboration practices into the guidance that DOD is developing, such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities, would be beneficial. In September 2014, the agency reported that the Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) program drafted a DoD Instruction (DoDI) and Field Guide that outlines roles and responsibilities and establishes compatible policies and procedures across DoD and MSEP programs. These documents include coordination from the Spouse Ambassador Network (SAN). A SECO DoDI Working Group will be convened in FY15 to assist in policy development and coordination. The estimated date of completion for the SECO DoDI and Field Guide was originally December 2015 but DOD reported in 2016 that possible coordination through the Federal Register may delay final publication until early 2016. SECO drafted a SECO Performance Management Plan that documents all elements of the comprehensive, integrated SECO program, including SECO Processes (Programs and Services), SECO Outputs (Products), SECO Outcomes (Product Results), and SECO Impact Evaluation (Product Effectiveness targets and measures). Due to its comprehensive nature, this tool will be tested and further refined during FY15.
    Director: Mackin, Michele
    Phone: (202)512-4309

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help mitigate future confusion regarding justifications for 8(a) sole-source contracts over $20 million, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, in consultation with the FAR Council, should promulgate guidance to clarify whether an 8(a) justification is required for 8(a) contracts that are subject to a pre-existing Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) class justification.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open

    Comments: The FAR Council opened a FAR case (2013-018) to address the recommendations from this report by clarifying the requirement for sole source 8(a) justifications. As of July 2017, the draft proposed FAR rule was awaiting approval for release. We will continue to monitor the progress of this proposed FAR rule.
    Recommendation: To help mitigate future confusion regarding justifications for 8(a) sole-source contracts over $20 million, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, in consultation with the FAR Council, should promulgate guidance to provide additional information on actions contracting officers should take to comply with the justification requirement when the contract value rises above or falls below $20 million between SBA's acceptance of the contract for negotiation under the 8(a) program and the contract award.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open

    Comments: The FAR Council opened a FAR case (2013-018) to address the recommendations from this report by clarifying the requirement for sole source 8(a) justifications. As of July 2017, the draft proposed FAR rule was awaiting approval for release. We will continue to monitor the progress of this proposed FAR rule.
    Recommendation: To help mitigate future confusion regarding justifications for 8(a) sole-source contracts over $20 million, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, in consultation with the FAR Council, should promulgate guidance to clarify whether and under what circumstances a separate sole-source justification is necessary for out-of-scope modifications to 8(a) sole-source contracts.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
    Status: Open

    Comments: The FAR Council opened a FAR case (2013-018) to address the recommendations from this report by clarifying the requirement for sole source 8(a) justifications. As of July 2017, the draft proposed FAR rule was awaiting approval for release. We will continue to monitor the progress of this proposed FAR rule.
    Director: Gaffigan, Mark E
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that EM more effectively manages all its projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management and the Director of the Office of Management, as appropriate, to provide the Office of Acquisition and Project Management with information on EM's project classification decisions to ensure that all capital asset projects have been appropriately classified and are managed in accordance with DOE Order 413.3B.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: When commenting on our report, DOE agreed with our recommendation. According to agency information provided in March 2017, DOE has ongoing internal discussions to develop and document a policy addressing EM capital asset project and operations activity classifications. However, DOE has not yet established and approved such a policy.
    Director: Russell, Cary B
    Phone: (202)512-5431

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure camouflage uniforms being developed by the military services meet mission requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to ensure that the services have and consistently use clear policies and procedures and a knowledge-based approach to produce successful outcomes.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to our recommendation, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of a Defense for Supply Chain Integration (DASD (SCI)) stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will place additional emphasis on the importance of following existing policies and procedures through oversight by the Joint Clothing and Textile Governance Board. The (DASD (SCI)) stated that existing guidance and the joint criteria, developed by the JCTGB, are sufficient and provide the policy and procedures necessary to ensure uniforms produce successful outcomes. The guidance on joint criteria states that future ground combat uniforms will use these criteria as the minimum standards during development and initial fielding. The official told us that they do not plan to develop any additional guidance to address our recommendation. However, based on review of DOD's actions thus far, it is not clear that the joint criteria and guidance alone will ensure that the services 1) consistently use existing policies and procedures to change their varying, fragmented processes, which in the past have not consistently ensured the development of effective camouflage uniforms, or 2) adopt a knowledge-based approach to manage uniform acquisition activities.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that Congress has the necessary information to provide effective oversight over all of DOD's civilian senior leader workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to conduct assessments of the skills, competencies, and gaps within all five career civilian senior leader workforces and report them in DOD's future strategic workforce plans.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2014, officials with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) Human Capital Management Office stated that development of criteria for assessing the skills, competencies, and gaps of the department's Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforces had been completed. According to the officials, the criteria will be included in the department's senior leader management policies and fully implemented once the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) completes development, revision, and publication of other DOD related civilian senior leader management policies that the revised Defense Intelligence civilian senior leader policy references. Update 9/2016: Officials from the Strategic Human Capital Planning Division indicated that a future strategic plan will address GAO's recommendation. Officials indicated that the plan is expected to be released in Fall 2016.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD and Congress have visibility over the necessity of the Selective Service System to meeting DOD's needs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to establish a process of periodically reevaluating DOD's requirements for the Selective Service System in light of changing threats, operating environments, and strategic guidance.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: Section 551 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act established the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to conduct a review of the military selective service process and consider methods to increase participation in military, national, and public service in order to address national security and other public service needs of the Nation. Section 552 of the Act contained a mandate requiring DOD to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and to the Commission a report on the current and future need for a centralized registration system under the Military Selective Service Act. This report was submitted by DOD on July 19, 2017. The Commission is required to, not later than 30 months after the Commission establishment date, transmit to the President and Congress a report containing the findings and conclusions of the Commission. The Commission will terminate not later than 36 months after the Commission establishment date. As such, we are leaving this recommendation open until the Commission completes its work and we see if DOD plans to move forward with establishing a process to periodically reevaluate DOD's requirements for the Selective Service System.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202) 512-3000

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help provide for the successful implementation of Army and Air Force ERPs, and to help ensure that DFAS users have the training needed, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to ensure that time lines are established and monitored for those issues identified by DFAS that are impacting their efficient and effective use of GFEBS.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited action(s) being taken by the Army to ensure that time lines are established and monitored for those issues identified by DFAS that are impacting their efficient and effective use of GFEBS. We have made attempts to follow up with Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Acquisition Technology and Logistics officials to obtain documentation of actions taken and to determine whether the Army has taken sufficient action to address this recommendation. However, as of July 2017, we have not been able to obtain documentation that supports that this recommendation was addressed.
    Recommendation: To help provide for the successful implementation of Army and Air Force ERPs, and to help ensure that DFAS users have the training needed, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that time lines are established and monitored for those issues identified by DFAS that are impacting their efficient and effective use of DEAMS.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited action(s) being taken by the Air Force to ensure that time lines are established and monitored for those issues identified by DFAS that are impacting their efficient and effective use of DEAMS. We have made attempts to follow up with Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Acquisition Technology and Logistics officials to obtain documentation of actions taken to determine whether the Army has taken sufficient action to address this recommendation. However, as of July 2017, we have not been able to obtain documentation that supports that this recommendation was addressed.
    Recommendation: To help provide for the successful implementation of Army and Air Force ERPs, and to help ensure that DFAS users have the training needed, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to improve training for GFEBS users by providing training on actual job processes in a manner that allows users to understand how the new processes support their job responsibilities and the work they are expected to perform.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited action(s) being taken by the Army to improve training for GFEBS users on actual job processes. We have made attempts to follow up with Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Acquisition Technology and Logistics officials to obtain documentation of actions taken to determine whether the Army has taken sufficient action to address this recommendation. However, as of July 2017, we have not been able to obtain documentation that supports that this recommendation was addressed.
    Recommendation: To help provide for the successful implementation of Army and Air Force ERPs, and to help ensure that DFAS users have the training needed, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to improve training for DEAMS users by providing training on actual job processes in a manner that allows users to understand how the new processes support their job responsibilities and the work they are expected to perform.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited action(s) being taken by the Air Force to improve training for DEAMS users on actual job processes. We have made attempts to follow up with Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) Acquisition Technology and Logistics officials to obtain documentation of actions taken to determine whether the Army has taken sufficient action to address this recommendation. However, as of July 2017, we have not been able to obtain documentation that supports that this recommendation was addressed.
    Director: Russell, Cary B
    Phone: (202)512-8365

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve oversight and ensure consistency in the reporting of total reset costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, the services, and the Joint Staff to act on the tasking in the Resource Management Decision 700 to develop and publish a DOD definition of reset for use in the DOD overseas contingency operations budgeting process.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2011, we recommended that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics, the services, and the Joint Staff to act on the tasking in the Resource Management Decision 700 to develop and publish a DOD definition of reset for use in the DOD overseas contingency operations budgeting process. According to OSD, a definition of reset for use in the overseas contingencies operations budgeting process has been developed and incorporated into a draft update to the DOD Financial Management Regulations. During coordination within the Department, the draft definition went to DOD Office of General Counsel for consultation on the exact wording of the definition of reset. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) plans to include the definition in the next update to the FMR currently set for January 2016. According to DOD OIG, the reset definition has been added to a draft update to DOD's Financial Management Regulation. The definition was originally submitted for an update to the Financial Management Regulation glossary in November 2012. In 2014, the department reported that the update was still in the Office of General Counsel for final legal review with issuance expected in January 2015. In 2015, the department reported that after consultation with the DOD Office of General Counsel (OGC) on the exact wording of the definition of reset, OUSD Comptroller plans to include the definition in the next update to the FMR currently set for January 2016. As of September 2016, DOD has still not issued its planned update to the FMR. Consequently, this recommendation will remain open.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to revise the Army procedures to include specific steps required to retain documentation of the activities performed and related results.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. However, it is not clear whether this action will provide sufficient Army-specific procedural requirements. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to revise the Marine Corps and Air Force procedures to include specific steps required to validate data in the OCO report including reconciliations and retain documentation of the activities performed and related results.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. However, it is not clear whether this action will provide sufficient Marine Corps and Air Force-specific procedural requirements. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to establish Navy procedures to include specific steps required to validate data in the OCO report including variance analysis and reconciliations, and retain documentation of the activities performed and related results.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. However, it is not clear whether this action will provide sufficient Navy-specific procedural requirements. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to revise DOD requirements in FMR 7000.14-R, Volume 12, Chapter 23, Contingency Operations, to provide clear, detailed guidance on (1) conducting reconciliations and other validations and (2) documenting military service-level reviews and DOD Comptroller-level reviews.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    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.