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: "Military intelligence"

    16 publications with a total of 47 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: Joseph W. Kirschbaum
    Phone: (202) 512-9971

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD implements the tasks and objectives of key cybersecurity guidance to strengthen its cybersecurity posture, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Principal Cyber Advisor to modify the criteria for closing tasks from The DOD Cyber Strategy to reflect whether tasks have been implemented, and to re-evaluate tasks that have been previously determined to be completed to ensure that they meet the modified criteria.

    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 DOD implements the tasks and objectives of key cybersecurity guidance to strengthen its cybersecurity posture, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Commander of CYBERCOM, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and DOD Chief Information Officer, to establish a timeframe and monitor implementation of the DOD Cybersecurity Campaign objective to develop cybersecurity readiness assessments to help ensure accountability.

    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: Kirschbaum, Joseph W
    Phone: (202) 512-9971

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy; Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Personnel and Readiness; and with military service and agency stakeholders, should conduct operations security surveys that identify IoT security risks and protect DOD information and operations, in accordance with DOD guidance, or address operations security risks posed by IoT devices through other DOD risk assessments.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The Principal Cyber Advisor, in coordination with the DOD Chief Information Officer; the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy; Intelligence; Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Personnel and Readiness; and with military service and agency stakeholders, should (1) review and assess existing departmental security policies and guidance--on cybersecurity, operations security, physical security, and information security--that may affect IoT devices; and (2) identify areas where new DOD policies and guidance may be needed--including for specific IoT devices, applications, or procedures--and where existing security policies and guidance can be updated to address IoT security concerns.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary 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: Brian Lepore
    Phone: (202) 512-4523

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better enable DOD to provide congressional decision makers with complete and reliable information on the total anticipated costs for the JIAC consolidation efforts, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment's Basing Office--in coordination with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Installations, Environment and Energy-- should update future construction cost estimates for consolidating the JIAC at RAF Croughton using best practices for cost estimating as identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. Specifically, cost estimates for the JIAC consolidation should fully incorporate all four characteristics of a high-quality, reliable estimate.

    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 of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on this report, DOD did not concur with our recommendation. DOD agreed that many components in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide are broadly applicable in the decision process leading up to a military construction budget request. However, DOD further stated that once military construction funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress, the department transitions to a project management mode, and it would be a waste of resources to continue to generate cost estimates once they have transitioned to managing project execution using actual cost data. However, as we note in the report, DOD guidance for estimating construction costs, DOD?s Unified Facilities Criteria 3-740-05, states that in the MILCON program, construction cost estimates are prepared throughout the planning, design, and construction phases of a construction project to account for the refinement of the project?s design and requirements. The final estimate should document the department?s assessment of the program's most probable cost and ensure that enough funds are available to execute it. As of October 2016, the military construction funds had not been authorized by Congress for the third phase of the JIAC construction project. According to DOD officials, construction is not scheduled to begin until fall of 2017, and the contract has not yet been awarded. Further, the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide states that regardless of whether changes to the program result from a major contract modification or an overtarget budget, the cost estimate should be regularly updated to reflect all changes. This is also a requirement outlined in OMB?s Capital Programming Guide. The purpose of updating the cost estimate is to check its accuracy, defend the estimate over time, and archive cost and technical data for use in future estimates. After the internal agency and congressional budgets are prepared and submitted, it is imperative that cost estimators continue to monitor the program to determine whether the preliminary information and assumptions remain relevant and accurate. Keeping the estimate updated gives decision makers accurate information for assessing alternative decisions. Cost estimates must also be updated whenever requirements change, and the results should be reconciled and recorded against the old estimate baseline. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOD?s implementation of our recommendation to update future JIAC cost estimates using the best practices identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide would assist in ensuring that decision makers have complete and reliable information about costs associated with the JIAC consolidation and as the third phase of the JIAC project is authorized. Implementing our recommendation would also ensure that DOD develops a reliable historical record for the cost of the JIAC that can be used to estimate other similar projects in the future. As of June 2017, the agency had not taken any action to implement this recommendation.
    Director: Joseph W. Kirschbaum
    Phone: (202) 512-9971

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to better enable personnel to provide intelligence inputs to their portfolios of acquisition programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to establish certifications that include having these personnel complete required training.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. Once DOD has provided information on actions to address the recommendation we will update the status.
    Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to facilitate implementation of improved processes and procedures developed by the Acquisition Intelligence Requirements Task Force and by the Air Force for the integration of intelligence into major defense acquisition programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to revise relevant guidance and procedures--including DOD Instruction 5000.02 and DOD Directive 5250.01-- require that intelligence mission data at the acquisition program, service, and department levels be prioritized.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. Once DOD has provided information on actions to address the recommendation we will update the status.
    Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to better ensure that DOD obtains useful feedback from stakeholders and the intended users of the Validated Online Lifecycle Threat tool, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to instruct the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to develop a communication plan for the tool that includes plans for communicating with and obtaining feedback from stakeholders and intended users such as acquisition program offices and personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. Once DOD has provided information on actions to address the recommendation we will update the status.
    Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to ensure that it fulfills the needs of acquisition programs and the intelligence community and works as intended, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to assess the need for the Acquisition Intelligence Support Assessment tool and, if validated by this assessment, define this tool's requirements for development and identify the entity responsible for providing oversight and funding for its continued development, implementation, and operation.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. Once DOD has provided information on actions to address the recommendation we will update the status.
    Director: Brian J. Lepore
    Phone: (202) 512-4523

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To aid DOD in conducting future AOA processes that fully follow best practices, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and the Environment to develop guidance requiring the use of AOA best practices, including those practices we have identified, and in this guidance, the Assistant Secretary should define the types of military construction decisions for which these AOA best practices should be required.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its written comments, DOD did not concur with our recommendation. Specifically, DOD disputes that our 22 best practices for a reliable Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) process apply to basing or military construction decision-making processes and therefore does not believe that the department should incorporate these best practices into its military construction decision-making process. We continue to believe that our AOA best practices can be applied to a wide range of activities in which an alternative must be selected from a set of possible options, as well as to a broad range of capability areas, projects, and programs including DOD's military construction decision-making processes. As of June 22, 2017, DOD had not taken any action to implement this recommendation.
    Director: Neumann, John
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOE's control activities continue to be relevant and effective for managing supply chain risk, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, as the Administrator of the NNSA, to work with the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and other DOE organizations, as appropriate, to assess the circumstances that might warrant using the enhanced procurement authority, and (1) if this assessment identifies circumstances that might warrant using the authority, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security to work with other DOE organizations, as appropriate, to establish processes for using it and examine whether adequate resources are in place to support those processes, and (2) communicate the results of this assessment to the relevant congressional committees for their use in determining whether to extend the authority past its current termination date.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: In an October 7, 2016, letter the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said he agreed with GAO's recommendation to assess situations that might warrant the use of the enhanced procurement authority and, should specific circumstances be identified for use of the authority, NNSA would develop a process for its use. The assessment would include an examination of resources to support use of the authority. NNSA would work with other Department of Energy organizations as appropriate in conducting the assessment. The results would be shared with relevant congressional committees, as GAO recommended. NNSA had anticipated completion of the assessment by March 2017, but on June 1, 2017, NNSA officials told us they anticipated the completion date would be September 30, 2017.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    6 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To enable AFRICOM's component commands to better plan, advise, and coordinate for OCS, the AFRICOM Commander, as part of AFRICOM's ongoing efforts to update related guidance and emphasize the importance of OCS integration at the subordinate command level, should direct the service components to designate elements within their respective staffs to be responsible for coordinating OCS, and consider the establishment of an OCS Integration Cell or similar structure with these dedicated OCS personnel, as needed.

    Agency: Department of Defense: U.S. Africa Command
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2016, AFRICOM officials stated that there are clear advantages and benefits to establishing an OCSIC at Service-component level. USAFRICOM, as a geographic combatant command, assigns operational missions to subordinate commands for execution, including operational contract support (OCS) tasks. Joint Pub 4-10, as augmented by AFRICOM Command Instruction (ACI) 4800.01 A, specifies the tasks and functions in support of OCS that Service Components must execute. Service Components determine the most appropriate organizational structure best suited to meet its assigned mission. i.e. establishment of an OCSlC as deemed necessary. However, service components have indicated that guidance clarifying the circumstances under which they should establish OCSICs would be helpful. As such, this recommendation will remain open at this time.
    Recommendation: To enable AFRICOM's component commands to better plan, advise, and coordinate for OCS, the AFRICOM Commander, as part of AFRICOM's ongoing efforts to update related guidance and emphasize the importance of OCS integration at the subordinate command level, should clarify under what conditions a subordinate joint force command, such as Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, should establish an OCS Integration Cell.

    Agency: Department of Defense: U.S. Africa Command
    Status: Open

    Comments: AFRICOM officials told us that USAFRICOM J4 conducted a staff assistance visit (SA V) at CJTF-HOA from 16-19 August 2015. It was recommended that ClTF-HOA establish an OCS Working Group (OCSWG) that is owned b) the ClTF-HOA J4. The OCSWG is a doctrinal working group and would contain designated cross-functional staff members to enable OCS planning and policy generation as well as Oversee contractor management issues. Other OCS recommendations were made to the CJTF-HOA J4 that included adding permanent OCS billets to the J4 and executing OCSIC tasks. This recommendation will remain open at this time.
    Recommendation: To enable AFRICOM to better identify, address, and mitigate OCS readiness gaps at its component commands before inaccurate information is incorporated into formal defense readiness reporting systems, the AFRICOM Commander should clarify the scorecard process, including assessment standards, for OCS Readiness Scorecards to ensure that evaluators can accurately assess subordinate commands' OCS capabilities.

    Agency: Department of Defense: U.S. Africa Command
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2016, AFRICOM officials stated that while the OCS score card may be considered a best practice in the OCS execution in the AFRICOM AOR, it is not a replacement for the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) to report OCS. This recommendation will remain open at this time.
    Recommendation: To enable AFRICOM to comprehensively and consistently account for contractor personnel in Africa, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should direct Joint Staff to clarify what types of contractor personnel should be accounted for in its guidance on personnel status reports.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD has taken steps to clarify what types of contractor personnel should be accounted for in its guidance on personnel status reports, but revision of that guidance is ongoing. According to Joint Staff officials in August 2016, USAFRICOM has not yet incorporated its local policies and standards into the CJCSM 3150.13C as the manual is up for review by the Joint Staff and is projected to be completed by Spring 2017. Additionally, in February 2016, a class deviation became effective for the USAFRICOM area of responsibility (AOR). This deviation superseded Class Deviations 2014-O0005, and 2015-O0003. The deviation stated that contracting officers shall incorporate clause 252.225-7980, Contractor Personnel Performing in the United States Africa Command Area of Responsibility, in lieu of the clause at DFARS 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items that will require contractor personnel to perform in the United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) area of responsibility. In addition, to the extent practicable, contracting officers shall modify current, active contracts with performance in the USAFRICOM AOR to include the clause 252.225-7980. The USAFRICOM Commander has identified a need to utilize the Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker for all contracts performed in the AOR during all operational phases (including Phase 0), not limited to declared contingency operations. However, until guidance clarifying what types of contractor personnel is finalized, this recommendation will remain open.
    Recommendation: To enable AFRICOM to comprehensively and consistently account for contractor personnel in Africa, the AFRICOM Commander should develop area of responsibility-wide contractor personnel accountability guidance on or before December 2015, when the current guidance expires, that clarifies which types of contractor personnel should be accounted for using SPOT, and when SPOT accountability requirements should be incorporated into contracts.

    Agency: Department of Defense: U.S. Africa Command
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2016, AFRICOM officials told us Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.225-7980 (Class Deviation 2016-00008), Contractor Personnel Performing in the United States Africa Command Area of Responsibility was published in June 2016. This clause requires the use of the Synchronized Pre-Deployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) to account for all Contractor Authorized to Accompany the Force (CAAF), United States and third-country national contractors (TCNs), all private security contractors. and all other contractor personnel authorized to carry weapons when performing in the AFRICOM AOR on all DoD contracts, regardless of the contract amount or period of performance. Furthermore. the DoD contractor is required to submit to the cognizant contracting officer for SPOT reporting and aggregate count of all local national employees performing in the AFRICOM AOR. by country of performance, for 30 days or longer under a contract valued at or above $150.000. This recommendation will remain open at this time.
    Recommendation: To ensure that combatant commands are not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should develop guidance that clarifies the conditions under which combatant commands should have a foreign vendor vetting process or cell in place to determine whether potential vendors actively support any terrorist, criminal, or other sanctioned organizations, including clarifying when combatant commands should develop procedures for transmitting the names of any vendors identified through this process for inclusion in prohibited entities lists in the appropriate federal contracting databases, such as the System for Award Management.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of October 2016, DOD has taken steps to develop foreign vendor vetting guidance, but that guidance is in the process of being drafted. According to Joint Staff officials in August 2016, as required by NDAA for FY2015, Section 841(d)(1), the Director, Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy, issued Class Deviation 2015-O0016, Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy and Authorization of Additional Access to Records, effective September 15, 2015. Also, Joint Staff has drafted a Directive Type Memorandum (DTM)on foreign vendor vetting. When issued, the DTM will assign responsibility to each of the Combatant Commanders to establish a foreign vendor program in their respective Areas of Responsibility in accordance with NDAA for FY2015, Sections 841, 842 and 843. However, until the DTM is issued, this recommendation will remain open.
    Director: Thomas Melito
    Phone: (202) 512-9601

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of State should reconsider State's INKSNA process to ensure that it (1) complies with INKSNA's 6-month reporting cycle, and (2) minimizes delays in its ability to opt to impose sanctions.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its written comments on the draft report, the Department of State concurred with our recommendation while expressing concerns about what it referred to as the inherent difficulties of producing 2006 Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) reports every six months as required by law. In a July 2016 letter, State noted that it had worked to minimize delays in its ability to impose sanctions pursuant to INKSNA reports and that it aims to eventually comply with INKSNA's six-month reporting cycle as it clears the existing backlog of INKSNA cases. Moreover, it noted that State had transmitted three INKSNA reports covering three years of activity (the latest covering calendar year 2013) within the last 18 months as evidence that it was making progress towards meeting the GAO recommendation. In 2017, State informed us that it was regularly reviewing lessons learned from previous reports and incorporating best practices into follow-on iterations of INKSNA reports. For example, it informed us, it had now streamlined the decision-making process to reduce the workload in making sanctions determinations by modifying the INKSNA decision and background memo to consolidate certain cases on which the interagency has achieved consensus recommendations, thereby simplifying the review and approval process. State reiterated its intention to eventually comply with INKSNA?s six-month reporting cycle as it clears the existing backlog. GAO will continue monitoring State's efforts to fully implement the recommendation.
    Director: Marie A. Mak
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    6 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure a consistent and more collaborative approach to the protection of critical technologies, the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; as well as the Attorney General of the United States, who have lead and stakeholder responsibilities for the eight programs within the critical technologies portfolio, should take steps to promote and strengthen collaboration mechanisms among their respective programs while ongoing initiatives are implemented and assessed. These steps need not be onerous; for example, they could include conducting an annual meeting to discuss their programs, including the technologies they are protecting, their programs' intent, any new developments or changes planned for their programs, as well as defining consistent critical technologies terminology and sharing important updates.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. Relevant efforts by DHS to finalize memoranda of understanding with other agencies and by the Export Enforcement Coordination Center to share information and data across the export control enforcement community are ongoing. As of Sept 2017, DHS did not identify relevant actions to coordinate on critical technologies among other agencies.
    Recommendation: To ensure a consistent and more collaborative approach to the protection of critical technologies, the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; as well as the Attorney General of the United States, who have lead and stakeholder responsibilities for the eight programs within the critical technologies portfolio, should take steps to promote and strengthen collaboration mechanisms among their respective programs while ongoing initiatives are implemented and assessed. These steps need not be onerous; for example, they could include conducting an annual meeting to discuss their programs, including the technologies they are protecting, their programs' intent, any new developments or changes planned for their programs, as well as defining consistent critical technologies terminology and sharing important updates.

    Agency: Department of Commerce
    Status: Open

    Comments: Commerce has identified various efforts to collaborate across multiple agencies within individual critical technologies programs, but has not taken steps to promote collaboration on critical technologies through a larger group discussion.
    Recommendation: To ensure a consistent and more collaborative approach to the protection of critical technologies, the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; as well as the Attorney General of the United States, who have lead and stakeholder responsibilities for the eight programs within the critical technologies portfolio, should take steps to promote and strengthen collaboration mechanisms among their respective programs while ongoing initiatives are implemented and assessed. These steps need not be onerous; for example, they could include conducting an annual meeting to discuss their programs, including the technologies they are protecting, their programs' intent, any new developments or changes planned for their programs, as well as defining consistent critical technologies terminology and sharing important updates.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD has identified numerous activities within DOD to coordinate across the critical technologies portfolio, in particular the Arms Transfer and Technology Release Senior Steering Group. In some cases, these activities include other departments, most commonly State. However, officials have stated that they are not aware of any high-level coordination on critical technologies among the larger group of agencies. On Sept. 5, 2017, DOD provided an update on multiple DOD efforts, including CFIUS, but none are collaborating among all of the agencies cited in the recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure a consistent and more collaborative approach to the protection of critical technologies, the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; as well as the Attorney General of the United States, who have lead and stakeholder responsibilities for the eight programs within the critical technologies portfolio, should take steps to promote and strengthen collaboration mechanisms among their respective programs while ongoing initiatives are implemented and assessed. These steps need not be onerous; for example, they could include conducting an annual meeting to discuss their programs, including the technologies they are protecting, their programs' intent, any new developments or changes planned for their programs, as well as defining consistent critical technologies terminology and sharing important updates.

    Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2016, the agency identified coordination actions being taken across the agencies with export control responsibilities--including through the Export Control Enforcement Center--and through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. However, it is not clear how, or if, these coordination efforts are tied to the larger, government-wide portfolio of critical technologies programs. As of Sept. 2017, Justice has no additional updates.
    Recommendation: To ensure a consistent and more collaborative approach to the protection of critical technologies, the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; as well as the Attorney General of the United States, who have lead and stakeholder responsibilities for the eight programs within the critical technologies portfolio, should take steps to promote and strengthen collaboration mechanisms among their respective programs while ongoing initiatives are implemented and assessed. These steps need not be onerous; for example, they could include conducting an annual meeting to discuss their programs, including the technologies they are protecting, their programs' intent, any new developments or changes planned for their programs, as well as defining consistent critical technologies terminology and sharing important updates.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury
    Status: Open

    Comments: In September 2016, a Treasury official identified coordination actions being taken across the agencies with export control responsibilities and through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. However, coordination efforts are not tied to larger, government-wide collaboration on critical technologies. In March 2017, Treasury provided an update on actions taken, but did not address the recommendation for coordination among the critical technologies programs.
    Recommendation: To ensure a consistent and more collaborative approach to the protection of critical technologies, the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury; as well as the Attorney General of the United States, who have lead and stakeholder responsibilities for the eight programs within the critical technologies portfolio, should take steps to promote and strengthen collaboration mechanisms among their respective programs while ongoing initiatives are implemented and assessed. These steps need not be onerous; for example, they could include conducting an annual meeting to discuss their programs, including the technologies they are protecting, their programs' intent, any new developments or changes planned for their programs, as well as defining consistent critical technologies terminology and sharing important updates.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken any actions necessary to implement it. In Sept. 2017, State provided updates on actions taken within the department, but none across affected agencies.
    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: Mak, Marie A
    Phone: (202) 512-2527

    1 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To ensure consistent implementation of NASA's export control program, the NASA Administrator should establish guidance defining the appropriate level and organizational placement of the CEA function.

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

    Comments: NASA concurred with the recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA needs to complete a planned update to its NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 2190.1B concerning NASA's export control program to further codify this structure and provide us with the documentation for review.
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    7 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to update crew ratios for RPA units to help ensure that the Air Force establishes a more-accurate understanding of the required number of RPA pilots needed in its units.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of May 2015, Air Force officials stated that, in February 2015, the Air Force completed the first phase of a three-phase personnel requirements study designed to update the UAS unit crew ratio, which is a measure the Air Force uses to determine the personnel needs for Air Force aviation units. The Air Force expects to report results of this study by spring 2016, but Air Force officials stated that the preliminary results of the study indicate that the Air Force may be able to update UAS unit crew ratios and increase the required number of pilots in UAS units. Air Force officials stated that Air Force leadership is reviewing the results of the first phase of the study, but that they expect the Air Force to update the UAS unit crew ratio by summer 2015.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a minimum crew ratio in Air Force policy below which RPA units cannot operate without running unacceptable levels of risk to accomplishing the mission and ensuring safety.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In September 2014, the Air Force reported that the three-phase personnel requirements study would also address our recommendation to establish a minimum crew ratio for UAS units. The Air Force discusses the components of a minimum crew ratio in the Air Combat Command's (ACC) Steady State Concept of Operations, which the Air Force published prior to our 2014 review. However, this minimum crew ratio is not in Air Force policy and Air Force officials stated that the Air Force is not enforcing this minimum crew ratio due to shortages of Air Force UAS pilots. In a December 2014 memo to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the ACC?s commanding general also made this point when he stated that Air Force units are staffed below the minimum crew ratio. As of May 2015, the Air Force had not established a minimum crew ratio in Air Force policy since our review.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a recruiting and retention strategy that is a tailored to the specific needs and challenges of RPA pilots to help ensure that the Air Force can meet and retain required staffing levels to meet its mission.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: Previously, Air Force cadets who were preparing to join the Air Force and applying for undergraduate flying training volunteered for any of the four careers, including the manned-aircraft pilot career, the UAS pilot career, or two other aviation-related careers. According to Air Force officials, nearly all of the cadets applied for the manned-aircraft pilot career and few applied for any of the other careers. In fiscal year 2014, the Air Force began requiring these cadets to volunteer to serve in any of the four careers. This new process allows the Air Force to assign these cadets to any of the four careers based on a number of factors including the cadet?s performance and Air Force needs. An Air Force headquarters official confirmed that in fiscal year 2014, the Air Force met 123 of their 129 UAS pilot accessions goal, or the Air Force?s goal for the number of cadets who graduate from Air Force officer schools and agree to serve as UAS pilots. Regarding retention of UAS pilots, in January 2015, the Air Force increased the Assignment Incentive Pay for UAS pilots who are reaching the end of their 6 year service commitment to $1500/month. An Air Force official stated that this increase currently applies to 4 pilots. However, the Air Force does not have a recruiting and retention strategy that is tailored to UAS pilots. Air Force senior leadership and headquarters officials stated that the Air Force is in the process of developing other strategies to recruit and retain UAS pilots.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate the viability of using alternative personnel populations including enlisted or civilian personnel as RPA pilots to identify whether such populations could help the Air Force meet and sustain required RPA pilot staffing levels.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In April 2014, we reported that Headquarters Air Force officials stated that they have, at times, considered the use of enlisted or civilian personnel but have not initiated formal efforts to evaluate whether using such populations would negatively affect the ability of the Air Force to carry out its missions. Air Force officials stated that in fall 2014, the Air Force Chief of Staff requested that headquarters staff evaluate the potential of using enlisted personnel as UAS pilots. As of March 2015, Air Force officials were not able to provide any details about the assessment they were conducting but confirmed plans to report to the Air Force Chief of Staff by spring 2015.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to incorporate feedback from RPA pilots by using existing mechanisms or by collecting direct feedback from RPA pilots.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to a DODIG request for information about this recommendation, the Air Force reported that it uses standardized feedback mechanisms across all units through the Air Force Unit Climate Assessment and other similar surveys. It also reported that "consideration should be given to assess whether this is appropriate to collect feedback from RPA pilots and at the appropriate levels desired and, if so, the Air Force will analyze and incorporate feedback from a validated survey and feedback process." However, as of July 2015, the Air Force has not incorporated feedback from RPA pilots by using existing mechanisms or by collecting direct feedback from RPA pilots.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to analyze the effects of being deployed-on-station to determine whether there are resulting negative effects on the quality of life of RPA pilots and take responsive actions as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to a DODIG request for information about this recommendation, the Air Force reported that it has ample data showing the effects of RPA pilots being deployed-on-station over the last nine years. It went on to report that it had identified the stressors related to being deployed-on-stations and that these stressors likely could be addressed with personnel solutions to increase the number of personnel in RPA units. DODIG considers this recommendation to be closed. However, as of July 2015, the Air Force has not fully analyzed whether being deployed-on-station has negative effects on quality of life that are not attributable to the stressors that are related to low unit-staffing levels that we discussed above such as rotating shifts and long assignments.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to include the career field effect of being an RPA pilot into the Air Force Personnel Center's (AFPC) analysis to determine whether and how being an RPA pilot is related to promotions and determine whether the factors AFPC identified in its analysis of Line of the Air Force officers are also related to RPA pilot promotions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to a DODIG request for information about this recommendation, the Air Force reported that it continued to track and analyze the promotion rates of RPA pilots and that the RPA career field is a subsection of the Line of the Air Force. The Air Force stated that, therefore, factors related to promotions identified in analysis is of the Line of the Air Force are directly related to RPA pilot promotions. Unfortunately, as of July 2015, AFPC has not included the career field effect of being an RPA pilot into its analysis of the factors that are related to promotions to determine whether and how being an RPA pilot is related to promotions. In addition, the Air Force may not take further action because DODIG closed this recommendation according to a DODIG recommendation follow up report dated July 2015.
    Director: Dinapoli, Timothy J
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    7 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve civilian IC elements' or their respective departments' ability to mitigate risks associated with the use of contractors, the Director of National Intelligence, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Attorney General of the United States, and Secretaries of Energy and the Treasury should direct responsible agency officials to set time frames to develop guidance that fully addresses the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Policy Letter 11-01's requirements related to closely supporting inherently governmental functions.

    Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. ODNI has held roundtables to discuss OFPP PL 11-01 implementation with other IC agencies. ODNI also revised ICD 612 but has not developed implementing guidance for ODNI MSD.
    Recommendation: To improve civilian IC elements' or their respective departments' ability to mitigate risks associated with the use of contractors, the Director of National Intelligence, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Attorney General of the United States, and Secretaries of Energy and the Treasury should direct responsible agency officials to set time frames to develop guidance that fully addresses the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Policy Letter 11-01's requirements related to closely supporting inherently governmental functions.

    Agency: Department of Energy
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its letter to OMB and the Congress, the agency concurred with this recommendation. In July 2015, the agency issued interim guidance, but the guidance does not fully address OFPP Policy Letter 11-01. The agency explained that once the Federal Acquisition Regulation is updated, the agency's acquisition regulation will be updated as necessary to reflect the new guidance. Since that time, no further action has occurred.
    Recommendation: To improve civilian IC elements' or their respective departments' ability to mitigate risks associated with the use of contractors, the Director of National Intelligence, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Attorney General of the United States, and Secretaries of Energy and the Treasury should direct responsible agency officials to set time frames to develop guidance that fully addresses the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Policy Letter 11-01's requirements related to closely supporting inherently governmental functions.

    Agency: Department of Justice
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its letter to OMB and the Congress, the agency concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken the actions necessary to implement it.
    Recommendation: To improve civilian IC elements' or their respective departments' ability to mitigate risks associated with the use of contractors, the Director of National Intelligence, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Attorney General of the United States, and Secretaries of Energy and the Treasury should direct responsible agency officials to set time frames to develop guidance that fully addresses the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Policy Letter 11-01's requirements related to closely supporting inherently governmental functions.

    Agency: Department of the Treasury
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its letter to OMB and the Congress, the agency concurred with this recommendation. Treasury issued additional supplemental guidance and is currently updating its procurement and workforce guidance to fully address OFPP Policy Letter 11-01.
    Recommendation: To improve civilian IC elements' or their respective departments' ability to mitigate risks associated with the use of contractors, the Director of National Intelligence, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Attorney General of the United States, and Secretaries of Energy and the Treasury should direct responsible agency officials to set time frames to develop guidance that fully addresses the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Policy Letter 11-01's requirements related to closely supporting inherently governmental functions.

    Agency: Central Intelligence Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: The agency did not comment on our recommendation. Please contact Timothy DiNapoli at (202) 512-4841 or dinapolit@gao.gov for additional information on the status of this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve congressional oversight and enhance civilian IC elements' insights into their use of core contract personnel, when reporting to congressional committees, the IC CHCO should clearly specify limitations and significant methodological changes and their associated effects.

    Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: IC Chief Human Capital Officer
    Status: Open

    Comments: The IC CHCO described steps it was taking to implement the recommendation. For example, the IC CHCO stated it highlighted limitations to the data and the reasons for data adjustments from year-to-year in its FY 2014-2016 briefings to Congress. We will continue to follow up with the IC CHCO to determine whether these actions meet the intent of the recommendation.
    Recommendation: To improve the ability of the civilian IC elements to strategically plan for their contractors and mitigate associated risks, the IC CHCO should revise the Intelligence Community Directive 612's provisions governing strategic workforce planning to require the IC elements to identify their assessment of the appropriate workforce mix on a function-by-function basis.

    Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: IC Chief Human Capital Officer
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2015, IC CHCO revised Intelligence Community Directive 612 and removed the provisions governing strategic workforce planning. We will continue to follow up with IC CHCO to determine whether steps will be taken to require IC elements to identify an appropriate workforce mix.
    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: 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)512-3604

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In future reviews of the civilian senior leader workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness document the analysis conducted to provide supportable information about what DOD's requirements are for the Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforces.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to an official in the Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service's Civilian Senior Executive Management Division, the department will conduct a complete assessment of its Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical workforces in late 2014 and early 2015 as required for the Office of Personnel Management's 2016 and 2017 biennial review of executive resources allocations process. According to the official, when the analysis is conducted it will be appropriately documented.
    Recommendation: To improve the management and development of DOD's civilian senior leader workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to finalize and issue common criteria for the military service intelligence elements and the defense intelligence agencies to use in their assessments of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service requirements.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to officials with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence), Human Capital Management Office, development of common criteria for assessing and justifying Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce requirements has been completed. The officials explained that coordination, approval, and implementation of the criteria is pending publication of other related civilian senior leader policies by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness).
    Recommendation: To improve the management and development 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 better communicate key information, including justifications for each Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service position needed, during the development and presentation of legislative proposals to congressional decision makers.

    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 since the Secretary of Defense 2010 Efficiency Initiatives, the defense intelligence community has not developed or presented any legislative proposals related to increases in the number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations. According to the officials, when the department's intelligence community does request additional Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service allocations from the Congress, they will provide key information and justification along with the proposal.
    Recommendation: To improve the management and development of DOD's civilian senior leader workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to establish clearly defined metrics for the Defense Senior Leader Development Program in order to measure the overall success of the program.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2014, officials in DOD's Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service responsible for the department's Defense Senior Leader Development Program, stated that the metrics for measuring the success of the Defense Senior Leader Development Program were recently revised and are awaiting coordination and approval from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness). The metrics are expected to be approved and implemented in fiscal year 2015.