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 contingency planning"

    26 publications with a total of 66 open recommendations including 7 priority recommendations
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that the United States has adequate available sealift capacity, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to finalize a comprehensive long-term sealift recapitalization plan that incorporates leading practices for capital planning, such as conducting a needs assessment, providing a framework with established criteria to assess options, specifying how projects will be prioritized, ensuring strategic linkage to DOD sealift requirements, and developing a long-term capital plan.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy is prepared to provide Navy combatants with required fuel and other supplies at sea, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a timely assessment of the effects of widely distributed operations on the size and composition of the combat logistics force and modify force structure plans accordingly.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enable the department to enhance its visibility over contractor personnel for whom it may become responsible in the event of contingency and other applicable operations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, update accountability guidance clarifying the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for in a steady-state environment.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To enable PACOM to consistently account for contractor personnel in its area of responsibility, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM Commander to clarify contractor personnel accountability guidance for the collection of all contractor personnel data in a steady-state environment and specify a system of record, such as SPOT, for the collection of this information.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To ensure that combatant commands are not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue guidance that clarifies the foreign-vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including the operational conditions under which a foreign-vendor vetting cell should be established.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To ensure that PACOM is not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, while awaiting DOD guidance on vendor vetting, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM commander to consider developing vendor vetting guidance as other combatant commands have done, to prepare for the event that PACOM becomes actively engaged in hostilities.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To enable OCS to be fully embedded in the command structure at the command and continue to build upon the progress of integrating OCS into the command, as PACOM updates OCS guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM Commander to consider ways to ensure all joint staff functions beyond the logistics area are fully integrated into its OCS organizational structure and OCS Integration Cell.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To enable PACOM to better identify OCS requirements and incorporate those requirements into Annex Ws and their appendixes, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM Commander to develop guidance that clarifies roles and responsibilities and the process that should be followed for OCS requirements development.

    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: Cary B. Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure quality financial execution information is available to guide the Joint Exercise Program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness to direct the combatant commanders to take steps to comply with current Execution Management System guidance to upload supporting documentation that is reconcilable to funds executed from the Combatant Commanders Exercise Engagement and Training Transformation account.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better ensure quality financial execution information is available to guide the Joint Exercise Program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness to, as the department implements financial improvement plans in accordance with the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness guidance, include specific internal control steps and procedures to address and ensure the completeness and accuracy of information captured for the Joint Exercise Program's Combatant Commanders Exercise Engagement and Training Transformation account.

    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: Joe Kirschbaum
    Phone: (202) 512-9971

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: As DOD plans to respond to a pandemic, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and other DOD officials, as appropriate, to use DOD's existing coordination mechanisms with HHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to explore opportunities to improve their preparedness and response to a pandemic if DOD's capabilities are limited.

    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: As HHS plans to respond to a pandemic, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to use HHS's existing coordination mechanisms with DOD and FEMA to explore opportunities to improve their preparedness and response to a pandemic if DOD's capabilities are limited.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: As DHS, through FEMA, plans to respond to a pandemic, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Administrator of FEMA to use FEMA's existing coordination mechanisms with DOD and HHS to explore opportunities to improve their preparedness and response to a pandemic if DOD's capabilities are limited.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Zina Merritt
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD's biennial core reporting procedures align with the reporting requirements in Section 2464 and each reporting agency provides accurate and complete information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to update DOD's guidance--in particular DOD Instruction 4151.20--to require future Biennial Core Reports to include instructions to the reporting agencies on how to (1) report additional depot workload performed that has not been identified as a core requirement, (2) accurately capture inter-service workload, (3) calculate shortfalls, and (4) estimate the cost of planned workload.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To increase the transparency of future Biennial Core Reports, Congress should consider amending 10 USC 2464 to require DOD to include information such as (1) workload shortfalls at lower-level categories; (2) executed workload in similar categories that could be used to mitigate shortfalls; (3) progress on implementing mitigation plans; (4) data reported at the first-level category of the work breakdown structure, except for when shortfalls are identified; (5) explanations for first-level categories (i.e., Special Interest Items and Other) of the work breakdown structure; and (6) whether the core requirements reported in the previous Biennial Core Report have been executed.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, 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: Joseph W. Kirschbaum
    Phone: (202) 512-9971

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that decision makers have immediate visibility into all capabilities of the National Guard that could support civil authorities in a cyber incident, the Secretary of Defense should maintain a database that can fully and quickly identify the cyber capabilities that the National Guard in the 50 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia have and could be used--if requested and approved--to support civil authorities in a cyber incident.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To better prepare DOD to support civil authorities in a cyber incident, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, and the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command to conduct a tier 1 exercise that will improve DOD's planning efforts to support civil authorities in a cyber incident. Such an exercise should also address challenges from prior exercises, such as limited participant access to exercise environment, inclusion of other federal agencies and private-sector cybersecurity vendors, and incorporation of emergency or disaster scenarios concurrent to cyber incidents.

    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: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512- 5431

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as a mission statement and long-term goals, to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations and to improve DOD's response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: This recommendation remains open because we found in our review of DOD's second update (GAO-17-530R) that DOD has not established a strategic policy for retrograde and reset consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning. Nor has DOD, as of June 2017, selected an appropriate organization to lead the effort on developing such a policy. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid because without a strategic policy for retrograde and reset that incorporates key elements of strategic management planning, DOD cannot ensure that its efforts to develop retrograde and reset guidance provide the necessary strategic planning framework to inform the military services' implementation plans for retrograde and reset. A necessary first step, as DOD has indicated and as we stated in our May 2016 report, is the selection of an appropriate organization to lead the development of the policy.
    Recommendation: To enhance the accuracy of budget reporting to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the DOD Comptroller, to develop and require the use of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and other guidance.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: This recommendation remains open because we found in our review of DOD's second update (GAO-17-530R) that DOD has not developed and required the use of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in policy and guidance. Thus, descriptions of retrograde and reset still vary, and the services use the same terms differently. In its written comments on our report, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Financial Management Regulation had recently been updated to include the definitions of both reset and retrograde that will be used to estimate and report Overseas Contingency Operations costs starting in Fiscal Year 2018, referencing the chapter on Contingency Operations. However, contrary to the department's claim, as of April 2017, the Financial Management Regulation chapter regarding Contingency Operations has not been updated since September 2007.21 An official we met with from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us that this office will be updating DOD's Financial Management Regulation to include the expanded definition of reset. According to this official, however, the updated Financial Management Regulation will likely not include a definition for retrograde. As we reported in May 2016, major operations typically involve retrograde. However, the chapter of the DOD Financial Management Regulation specific to contingency operations does not provide a definition of retrograde or include any information describing how retrograde costs should be considered or calculated. We continue to believe that if DOD does not ensure the use of consistent terms--especially retrograde and reset--and descriptions in policy and other departmental documents used to inform budget estimates on retrograde and reset, Congress may not receive the consistent and accurate information that it needs to make informed decisions concerning retrograde and reset.
    Recommendation: To improve Army, Navy, and Air Force planning, budgeting, and execution for retrograde and reset efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as strategies that include how a goal will be achieved, how an organization will carry out its mission, and the resources required to meet goals.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: This recommendation remains open because we found in our review of DOD's second update (GAO-17-530R) that the Army, Navy, and Air Force have not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment, according to service officials. As previously discussed, in May 2016 we recommended that the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning. In its response to our recommendation, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, as of June 2017, DOD has not identified a lead for this effort. We continue to believe that Army, Navy, and Air Force service-specific implementation plans that articulate goals and strategies for retrograde and reset of equipment, among other things, are important and that reset-related maintenance costs may not consistently be tracked, and resources and funding for retrograde and reset may not be consistently or effectively budgeted for and distributed within each service. For this reason, we continue to believe that our prior recommendation remains valid and reinforces the need for DOD to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans.
    Director: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.,
    Phone: (202) 512-7331

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve management of and reporting on the Global Train and Equip program, the Secretary of Defense should take steps to ensure that documentation requested in project proposal packages is complete.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-16-368, published in May 2016. As of June 2017, DOD had not provided us evidence that they have taken steps to ensure project proposal packages include all requested documentation. GAO will continue to monitor relevant DOD efforts in conducting related work.
    Recommendation: To improve management of and reporting on the Global Train and Equip program, the Secretary of Defense should take steps to develop a process for improving the timely completion and submission of required assessment reports to Congress.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: At the time of our April 2016 report, DOD was required to complete annual assessment reports on the section 10 U.S.C. Section 2282 Global Train and Equip program. However, the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) repealed the authorization for the Global Train and Equip program, including the annual reporting requirement, effective 270 days after the NDAA's enactment on December 23, 2016, or (September 19, 2017). In February 2017, DOD submitted its assessments for fiscal year 2016.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to disclose in the report the fact that reconstitution funding data are current as of the end of the fiscal year, identify significant changes reported in these data from year to year, and provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, DOD has not included any language in its annual prepositioning report that addresses this recommendation.
    Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in its planned update to its War Reserve Materiel Policy document, to add language to clarify when and how risk assessments should be performed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, DOD has not updated its DODI 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document.
    Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to include in the annual prepositioned stock report a section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information and indicates where that information can be found.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2017, DOD has not included in its annual report a secton that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information and where that information can be found.
    Director: John H. Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To identify and mitigate risk associated with the Army's planned force structure and improve future decision making, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to expand the Army's Total Army Analysis process to routinely require a mission risk assessment for the Army's combat and enabler force structure and an assessment of mitigation strategies for identified risk prior to finalizing future force structure decisions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army is in the process of reissuing its force development regulation (Army Regulation 71-32) and issuing a new Army Pamphlet. Collectively, officials said that these documents will codify the Army's approach to assessing mission risk and mitigation strategies for its force structure and require that these assessments be completed prior to finalizing future force structure decisions. Army officials said that these documents will be published in September 2017.
    Director: Chaplain, Cristina T
    Phone: (202)512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure DOD is sufficiently informed about the availability and reliability of data from U.S. civil government and international partner satellites as it plans for future SBEM capabilities that rely on such satellites, the Secretary of Defense should ensure the leads of future SBEM planning efforts establish formal mechanisms for coordination and collaboration with NOAA that specify roles and responsibilities and ensure accountability for both agencies.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, the Air Force and NOAA signed a memorandum of agreement under which the parties are to establish annexes for interagency acquisitions or support on SBEM efforts. The Air Force and NOAA are in the process of drafting two annexes for collecting SBEM data, expected to be completed by the winter of 2017, according to the Air Force. This effort does not cover collaboration between NOAA and DOD entities outside the Air Force, but NOAA is engaged in a separate memorandum of agreement with the Navy, which includes one annex that involves sharing data for SBEM-related activities. According to the Navy, additional draft annexes that would further SBEM-related data sharing are being considered. In addition, DOD and NOAA are in the process of responding to section 1607 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which directs the agencies to jointly establish mechanisms to collaborate and coordinate in defining roles and responsibilities to carry out SBEM activities and plan for future nongovernmental SBEM capabilities, and to submit a report on the mechanism established.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance the efforts of the allocated brigades in Africa, and to identify opportunities to enhance brigade mission-specific training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Commander of Army Forces Command and the Commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command, to conduct an assessment of the Army's approach to providing mission-specific training to regionally aligned forces, including the brigades allocated to AFRICOM, and determine whether any adjustments are needed. In addition to the assessment questions already identified by the Army in the Regionally Aligned Forces Execute Order, this assessment could consider (1) The degree to which the brigades' training--to include the curricula, resources, and execution--should be managed or coordinated at the institutional level. (2) How unit training programs should be resourced and the degree to which dedicated funding may be needed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army has taken positive steps in this area, such as developing a handbook to assist Regionally Aligned Force brigades in planning and training for their missions. Specifically, in November 2015, the Center for Army Lessons Learned published a handbook entitled "Regionally Aligned Forces Brigade Planning". Among other things, this handbook is intended to serve as a starting point for the identification of, planning for, and execution of missions as regionally aligned forces to an Army Service Component Command. Specific to training, this handbook includes guidance for brigades on how they should conduct mission-specific training for the regionally aligned forces mission, including: identifying potential subject matter experts and Army institutions to support mission specific training; providing sample training schedules; and highlighting specific doctrinal publications and key training considerations for use in guiding planning and preparation. According to an official from the Center for Army Lessons Learned, this handbook was intended to provide interim solutions to Regionally Aligned Force units to mitigate some of the difficulties that they have experienced until the Army formally addresses these issues with a permanent solution. While a positive step that could provide some remedies to the concerns cited in our report regarding mission-specific training, this handbook does not directly address our recommendation for the Army to conduct an assessment of its training approach for providing mission-specific training to regionally aligned forcesrecommendation. Thus, this recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To enhance the efforts of the allocated brigades in Africa, and to facilitate consistent, and predictable planning for mission-specific equipment requirements and efficient provision of such equipment, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Commander of Army Forces Command and the Commander of USARAF, to: (1) Identify the mission-specific equipment requirements on an appropriate requirements document for the brigades allocated to AFRICOM for security cooperation and other missions in Africa. (2) To the extent practicable, establish a consistent mechanism (e.g., a rotating equipment set, mission-essential equipment list) to ensure that the brigades allocated to AFRICOM are equipped with all known mission-essential equipment at the outset of their missions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army is pursuing the establishment of Africa Activity Sets to provide a range of mission-specific equipment for units conducting activities in Africa, including regionally aligned force brigades, but these equipment sets are still pending validation and funding.
    Director: Joseph Kirschbaum
    Phone: (202) 512-9971

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance collaboration between DOD and NNSA, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy should update the 1997 memorandum of agreement for the Council, and, as part of this update, describe the roles, responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's two support committees, how the Council and these groups are to work together, and the general processes and time frames the Council and its support committees should follow to carry out statutory responsibilities.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on this report, DOD agreed with our recommendation to update the 1997 memorandum of agreement and proposed that, once this action was completed, the Council Chairman would issue a letter to the Council members documenting the roles and responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's support committees. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy approved an updated memorandum of agreement for the Council in January 2017, but as of August 2017, the NRC Chairman had not issued a letter to Council members documenting the roles and responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's support committees. Council staff told us they expected to develop that letter after the Nuclear Posture Review was complete and its impact on the Council's process was clear. Officials anticipated the Nuclear Posture Review would be complete by the end of December 2017.
    Recommendation: To enhance collaboration between DOD and NNSA, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy should update the 1997 memorandum of agreement for the Council, and, as part of this update, describe the roles, responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's two support committees, how the Council and these groups are to work together, and the general processes and time frames the Council and its support committees should follow to carry out statutory responsibilities.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on this report, NNSA agreed with this recommendation and said it would work collaboratively with the Council and DOD to update the memorandum of agreement and ensure appropriate guidance is issued to document requirements for the Council's two support committees. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy approved an updated memorandum of agreement for the Council in January 2017, but as of August 2017, the NRC Chairman had not issued a letter to Council members documenting the roles and responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's support committees. Council staff told us they expected to develop that letter after the Nuclear Posture Review was complete and its impact on the Council's process was clear. Officials anticipated the Nuclear Posture Review would be complete by the end of December 2017.
    Recommendation: To enhance collaboration between DOD and NNSA, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy should update the 1997 memorandum of agreement for the Council, and, as part of this update, include a requirement that budget and program evaluation officials from both DOD and NNSA will consistently and routinely attend all meetings of the Council's two support committees.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on this report, DOD generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that the letter from the Council Chairman that would be developed to address our first recommendation would require that budget and program evaluation officials from both DOD and NNSA consistently and routinely attend meetings of the Council and its support committees. As of August 2017, the Nuclear Weapons Council's Standing and Safety Committee had reviewed and updated its membership and chairmanship structure and approved changes in preparation for the Council Chairman issuing a letter documenting the roles, responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's support committees. Council staff told us they expected to develop that letter after the Nuclear Posture Review was complete and its impact on the Council's process was clear. Officials anticipated the Nuclear Posture Review would be complete by the end of December 2017.
    Recommendation: To enhance collaboration between DOD and NNSA, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy should update the 1997 memorandum of agreement for the Council, and, as part of this update, include a requirement that budget and program evaluation officials from both DOD and NNSA will consistently and routinely attend all meetings of the Council's two support committees.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on this report, NNSA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would work collaboratively with the Council and DOD to ensure appropriate guidance is issued to document requirements for the participation of budget and evaluation officials in support committee meetings. As of August 2017, the Nuclear Weapons Council's Standing and Safety Committee had reviewed and updated its membership and chairmanship structure and approved changes in preparation for the Council Chairman issuing a letter documenting the roles, responsibilities, structure, and functions of the Council's support committees. Council staff told us they expected to develop that letter after the Nuclear Posture Review was complete and its impact on the Council's process was clear. Officials anticipated the Nuclear Posture Review would be complete by the end of December 2017.
    Director: Cary B. Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    5 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to ensure SPOT-ES cost estimates are accurate and comprehensive, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics direct the system's program office to regularly update its life-cycle cost estimate to include defining and assessing its plans for SPOT-ES.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to help improve timeliness and reliability of data in SPOT-ES, the Secretary of Defense should direct Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy officials, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to ensure that contracting officers use available mechanisms to track contractor performance of SPOT data entry, such as its Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System or other appropriate performance systems or databases.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to enhance the value of SPOT-ES data, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to fully register SPOT-ES data in the DSE to make data visible and trusted, including taking the necessary steps related to authoritative data sources.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to help ensure that DOD possesses the capability to collect and report statutorily required information and to clarify responsibilities and procedures, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to update SPOT provisions during the process of updating operational contract support guidance.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to provide clarity about expectations for the Joint Asset Movement Management System (JAMMS) that can help improve the timeliness and reliability of data for SPOT-ES from JAMMS uploads, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders, to develop comprehensive guidance regarding the purpose of JAMMS and its role in supporting plans for different types of missions. Such guidance could include direction on the number and location of JAMMS terminals and how frequently JAMMS's data should be uploaded into SPOT-ES to meet DOD's information needs.

    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: Johnson Jr, Charles M
    Phone: (202) 512-7331

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense should provide a range of time to clarify the time frames associated with near- to mid-term GSCF projects.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially agreed that the departments should clearly define what time frames constitute "near- to mid-term" for GSCF projects. As of September 2015, DOD has not published a definition for what time frame constitutes "near to mid-term" for GSCF projects.
    Recommendation: To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense should provide a range of time to clarify the time frames associated with near- to mid-term GSCF projects.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of State did not agree that the departments should define what time frames constitute "near- to mid-term" for GSCF projects. As of September 2015, State has not published a definition for what time frame constitutes "near to mid-term" for GSCF projects.
    Recommendation: To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense should track GSCF projects against established time frames.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense agreed that the departments should track GSCF projects against established time frames and said in its response that the departments plan to track the projects against the congressional notification timelines and plan to continue holding biweekly calls with project implementers to identify and address implementation considerations. As of September 2015, DOD has not tracked GSCF projects against time frames.
    Recommendation: To enhance the definition of the GSCF program and assist stakeholders in assessing whether GSCF is meeting its goals, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense should track GSCF projects against established time frames.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of State agreed that the departments should track GSCF projects against established time frames. As of September 2015, State is not tracking GSCF projects against time frames.
    Director: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve the implementation of GCSS-Army, the Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Under Secretary of the Army, in his capacity as the Chief Management Officer, directs the GCSS-Army Program Management Office to develop an updated schedule that fully incorporates best practices, including (1) assigning resources to all activities, (2) establishing durations of all activities, (3) confirming that the critical path is valid, and (4) ensuring reasonable total float.

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

    Comments: We are in the process of obtaining an updated integrated master schedule from DOD to determine if Army fully incorporated best practices. As of June 2017,Army officials told us that the integrated master schedule and revised cost estimate will not be available until December 2017. This recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To help improve the implementation of GCSS-Army, the Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Under Secretary of the Army, in his capacity as the Chief Management Officer, directs the GCSS-Army Program Management Office to update the cost estimate to fully incorporate best practices by documenting the results of (1) a risk and uncertainty analysis, (2) the cross-checking of major cost elements to see if results are similar, and (3) a sensitivity analysis.

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

    Comments: We are in the process of obtaining an updated cost estimate from DOD to determine if Army fully incorporated best practices. As of June 2017, Army officials told us that the integrated master schedule and revised cost estimate will not be available until December 2017. This recommendation remains open.
    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: Merritt, Zina Dache
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that Congress has visibility over the status of DOD's core depot-level maintenance and repair capability, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Maintenance, Policy, and Programs) to include in the Biennial Core Report to Congress detailed explanations for why services do not have the workload to meet core maintenance requirements for each shortfall identified in the report.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of July 2016, recent GAO work on this issue shows that DOD has not fully implemented this recommendation. In DOD's 2016 Biennial Core Report, DOD did not provide detailed explanations for all of the services shortfalls identified in its report. We are waiting until DOD's 2018 Biennial Core Report to further update the status of this recommendation.
    Director: Russell, Cary B
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    3 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To further the integration of operational contract support into all of the services' planning, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force to provide comprehensive service-wide guidance for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force that describes how each service should integrate operational contract support into its respective organization to include planning for contingency operations.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of September 2017, the Marine Corps and Air Force has developed OCS guidance; however, the Navy has not. In September 2016, the Marine Corps published Marine Corps Order 4200.34 on the manning, equipping and training of OCS capability. The Corps has established a new task list to define OCS as an essential wartime fighting capability, which provides units the foundation and ability to establish Mission Essential Tasks (METs) needed to effectively and efficiently measure and report OCS mission readiness. Marine Corps also developed and published an OCS career progression plan. The Air Force has taken steps to incorporate OCS into existing guidance, and the Secretary of the Air Force issued a memorandum in April 2016 providing guidance on integrating OCS into the total force. Additionally, Air Force issued AFI 64-105, Contingency Contracting Support, in August 2016. The Navy has begun drafting-but not yet issued-an instruction for internal review. Until all the services issue OCS guidance, this recommendation will remain open.
    Recommendation: To further the integration of operational contract support into all areas of the operation planning process, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to focus its training about operational contract support, which is currently focused on the logistics planners, on training all planners at the combatant commands and components as necessary.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, DOD has taken steps to focus OCS training to all planners, including those outside the logistics directorate. In December 2015, the Joint Staff J7 certified the Joint OCS Planning and Execution (JOPEC) course of instruction for Joint training. The Joint Staff, per this training certification, is working with the Joint Deployment Training Center and the Joint Force Staff College to provide student administrative and course catalog support for future JOPEC training. Due to demand for JOPEC training by the Combatant Commands and Services, an eighth JOPEC training course was added in late FY2015. In September 2017, OSD officials stated that a detailed analysis of alternatives required to transition JOPEC to a traditional program is on track to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2017. Results will be presented to Joint Staff senior leadership and the operational contract support Functional Capabilities Integration Board during the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. We will continue to monitor these efforts and this recommendation will remain open.
    Recommendation: To enable the integration of operational contract support into service component command-level planning efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to work with the military services as necessary to improve the level of expertise in operational contract support for the combatant commands' components.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD has taken steps to improve the level of OCS expertise at the component commands. Since September 2013, the Army has complemented Joint Staff efforts by converting its Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 4-10 into a Multi-Service TIP (MTTP) as a part of the DoD OCS Action Plan. The Army issued the MTTP in February 2016. Air Force and Marine Corps have also issued OCS guidance, but as of September 2017, Navy has not. We will continue to monitor these and other efforts, and the recommendation will remain open at this time.
    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: Chaplain, Cristina T
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To strengthen its baselines, facilitate external and independent reviews of those baselines, ensure effective oversight of the BMDS, and further improve transparency and accountability of its efforts, and to improve clarity, consistency, and completeness of the baselines reported to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that MDA, for resource baselines, obtain independent cost estimates for each baseline.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on our report, the agency concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken all actions necessary to implement it. Although the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has received independent cost estimates from its internal independent cost group for some programs and components that support the baselines provided in MDA's Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report (BAR), MDA officials told us they have not yet completed independent estimates for all the BAR baselines. In addition, the independent estimates will not have full lifecycle costs which will hamper their effectiveness. We will continue to monitor MDA's progress over the course of our next annual review.
    Recommendation: To strengthen its baselines, facilitate external and independent reviews of those baselines, ensure effective oversight of the BMDS, and further improve transparency and accountability of its efforts, and to improve clarity, consistency, and completeness of the baselines reported to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that MDA, for schedule baselines, in meeting new statutory requirements to report variances between reported acquisition baselines, also report variances between the test plan as presented in the previous acquisition baseline and the test plan as executed that explain the reason for any changes.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation and has taken initial steps to report the test variances, by laying out the dates of the proposed changes. However, the variances do not include all changes to test objectives, detail when tests are deleted, nor when the altered objectives will be satisfied. MDA has initiated an effort with DOT&E and the OTA to track the movement of test objectives, however these changes are not reported and are only used internally. In addition, MDA utilizes a "mid-year" test change memorandum. The change explains the difference from the prior master test plan, but is not reported. Thus, changes that are included in the mid-year memorandum can not be tracked if one only receives the annual test plan. We will continue to monitor MDA's progress in fiscal year 2017 and determine whether MDA lays out the changes in its upcoming integrated master test plan.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better understand the extent to which deployed DOD civilian employees have access to needed medical care, as appropriate, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Combatant Commander of U.S. Central Command to clarify the level of care that deployed DOD civilian employees can expect in theater, including their eligibility for routine care.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2016, DOD has not taken all the steps to close this recommendation. A DOD official stated that, as a result of changes in theater, there have been changes in guidance regarding medical care and they believe the guidance is clear, but they have not received guidance from the Secretary of Defense directing them to clarify the level of care that deployed civilian employees can expect in theater, including their eligibility for routine care.
    Director: Aloise, Eugene E
    Phone: (202)512-6870

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To allow Congress to better oversee management of the nuclear security enterprise and to improve NNSA's management information with respect to the base capabilities necessary to ensure nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and reliable, the Administrator of NNSA should, once the Stockpile Services work breakdown structure reflects a product or capability basis, use this work breakdown structure to develop product/capability cost estimates that adequately justify the congressional budget request for Stockpile Services.

    Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In process: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA is continuing to work to develop cost estimates for these products and capabilities to adequately justify the congressional budget request for Stockpile Services. In 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee's Energy and Water Development Subcommittee suggested changes to NNSA's budget structure to align it more closely with products and capabilities beginning with fiscal year 2016 appropriations. GAO will continue to monitor whether NNSA develops cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.
    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: Chaplain, Cristina T
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct MDA to ensure that developmental hardware and software changes are not made to the operational baseline that disrupt the assessments needed to understand the capabilities and limitations of new BMDS developments.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. In the June 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report (BAR), Missile Defense Agency (MDA) provided some operational baselines and continues to do so annually. Nonetheless, configuration changes continue to pose challenges to a thorough assessment of the BMDS architecture. For example, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation stated that the many configurations of the fielded ground-based interceptor inhibits a full evaluation of the GMD program. Moreover, some changes to BMDS elements are still delivered while testing of the architecture is already underway. We will continue to assess whether MDA fully adopts an approach allowing time for the warfighter and testers to fully understand hardware and software before placing it in the operational baseline.