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 manpower"

    8 publications with a total of 22 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: Andrew Von Ah
    Phone: (213) 830-1011

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
    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 ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

    Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
    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 ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
    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 ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

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

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should direct the Secretary of the Navy to have the Navy conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the Navy standard workweek and make any necessary adjustments.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, citing its commitment to ensuring that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should direct the Secretary of the Navy to have the Navy update guidance to require examination of in-port workload and identify the manpower necessary to execute in-port workload for all surface ship classes.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, citing its commitment to ensuring that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should direct the Secretary of the Navy to have the Navy develop criteria and update guidance for reassessing the factors used to calculate manpower requirements periodically or when conditions change.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, citing its commitment to ensuring that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should direct the Secretary of the Navy to have the Navy identify personnel needs and costs associated with the planned larger Navy fleet size, including consideration of the updated manpower factors and requirements.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, citing its commitment to ensuring that the Navy's manpower requirements are current and analytically based and will meet the needs of the existing and future surface fleet.
    Director: Von Ah, Andrew J
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that its Reserve Components' headquarters are conducting assessments with sufficient frequency, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to, when updating its existing guidance to clarify to which organizations it applies, also clarify whether assessments should be conducted twice yearly or every 2 years, or at some other frequency.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, DOD officials stated that the Air Force updated existing guidance to clarify the frequency of assessments of applicable headquarters activities, and this revised guidance is awaiting final signature, expected in September 2017. According to officials, the revised Air Force guidance now includes draft language, which states that Headquarters, Air Force; major commands; and the Air National Guard Headquarters element should establish an internal engineered factor and evaluate headquarters strength relative to the factor every year concurrently with fiscal year budget decisions that change allocated force structure. Once the revised guidance has been finalized, GAO will review the updated guidance and re-assess the implementation status of this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Office of the Director, Air National Guard has the number of personnel needed to accomplish their missions and performance objectives at the Joint Force Headquarters - State, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Chief, National Guard Bureau, to require assessments of Air Staff element personnel requirements at the Joint Force Headquarters - State.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2017, DOD officials stated that only the Air Force can provide and develop factors, tools, and overarching industrial and management engineering methodologies to accurately quantify the essential manpower required for the effective and efficient accomplishment of capabilities supporting oversight of the Air Force. These officials went on to add that Joint Force Headquarters-State are not active Air Force organizations. Accordingly, the National Guard Bureau and the states must determine personnel requirements associated with National Guard Bureau and state missions. For example, these officials stated that the National Guard Bureau continues to use all Air Force developed factors, tools and overarching industrial and management engineering methodologies to accurately quantify the essential manpower required at Joint Force Headquarters-State. They also stated that the Joint Force Headquarters-States' manpower requirements have been placed on the National Guard Bureau's full-time manpower study schedule for fiscal year 2017 and will undergo an immediate currency review. Additionally, every two years from the fiscal year 2017 currency review, the National Guard Bureau will re-assess and quantify essential manpower requirements at each of the Joint Force Headquarters-State. GAO requested additional information (e.g., guidance requiring Air Staff elements to conduct personnel requirements assessments at the Joint Force Headquarters-State, results of the inclusion of Joint Force Headquarters-State in the National Guard Bureau's full time manpower requirements study for fiscal year 2017) and will re-assess the implementation status of this recommendation upon receiving the requested documentation.
    Director: John H. Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    2 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to align DOD's data on department-wide military and civilian positions that have headquarters-related DOD function codes with the revised definition of major DOD headquarters activities in order to provide the department with reliable data to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining or further analysis.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: On August 16, 2016, DOD stated that it confirms the written comments it had provided in the report. In its response, DOD stated that it is currently updating civilian and military manpower and total obligation authority baselines for major DOD headquarters activities to align with the new headquarters-related definition and framework. The department stated that this effort includes updating data architecture for coding major DOD headquarters activities, by program element code, in the Future Years Defense Program, and noted that this data architecture will serve as the authoritative methodology to account for headquarters manpower and resources in the future. Further, DOD stated that, once those efforts are complete and the new framework is codified in an update to DOD Instruction 5100.73, the department will determine how best to align the function code taxonomy, which is the source of data for the IGCA Inventory, with the revised framework and definitions. We agree that determining how to align the data set from the IGCA Inventory with the revised framework and definitions is an important first step and, if implemented, would address the intent of our first recommendation.
    Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to, once this definition is published in DOD guidance, collect reliable information on the costs associated with functions within headquarters organizations--through revisions to the Inherently Governmental / Commercial Activities Inventory or another method--in order to provide the department with detailed information for use in estimating resources associated with specific headquarters functions, and in making decisions, monitoring performance, and allocating resources.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of June 2017, DOD had not completed action on this recommendation. DOD concurred with our recommendation, stating that once it has completed efforts to update data architecture for coding major DOD headquarters activities in the Future Years Defense Program, and codifies the new framework in an update to DOD Instruction 5100.73, the department will determine how best to align the function code taxonomy, which is the source of data for the Inherently Governmental Commercial Activities Inventory, with the revised framework.
    Director: Timothy J. DiNapoli
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure proposed contract activities, as reflected in the statement of work and other contract documents, are assessed against the criteria provided by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) policy, the Under Secretary for Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should ensure that the Director of the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy provide clear instructions, in a timely manner, on how the service requirement review boards are to identify whether contract activities include closely associated with inherently governmental functions.

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

    Comments: DOD Instruction 5000.74, issued in January 2016, discusses processes for the services requirements review boards, but does not mention closely associated with inherently governmental functions in that context. As new policy or guidance is issued, we will continue to evaluate its responsiveness to this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To ensure proposed contract activities, as reflected in the statement of work and other contract documents, are assessed against the criteria provided by the FAR and OFPP policy, the Under Secretary for Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should ensure that the Director of the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy require acquisition officials to document, prior to contract award, whether the proposed contract action includes activities that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions.

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

    Comments: According to DOD officials, a template is being developed for components to use in assessing a service contract to determine whether activities are closely associated with inherently governmental functions. However, this template has not yet been finalized or disseminated to the components.
    Recommendation: To help facilitate the collection and use of inventory data in decision-making processes, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should clearly identify the longer term relationships between the support office, military departments, and other stakeholders.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, these longer term relationships have not been fully identified. Officials stated that a memorandum of understanding issued in January 2017 provided some clarity regarding these relationships, but that additional steps are needed.
    Director: Timothy J.DiNapoli
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help facilitate the department's stated intent to develop a common data collection system to fully collect statutorily required data, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should approve a plan of action, with timeframes and milestones, for rolling out and supporting a department-wide data collection system as soon as practicable after December 1, 2014. Should a decision be made to use or develop a system other than the Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application system currently being fielded, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should document the rationale for doing so and ensure that the new approach will provide data that satisfies the statutory requirements for the inventory.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department has taken initial steps toward supporting the Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) by signing a Memorandum of Agreement that, in part, outlines responsibilities related to hosting, operating, and maintaining the ECMRA system, as well as by hiring key staff. However, it has not fully developed a plan of action, with timeframes and milestones, for supporting the system. We will continue to monitor the Department's progress.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the inventory of contracted services is integrated into key management decisions as statutorily required, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should identify an accountable official within their departments with responsibility for leading and coordinating efforts across their manpower, budgeting, and acquisition functional communities and, as appropriate, revise guidance, develop plans and enforcement mechanisms, and establish processes.

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

    Comments: As of March 2016, DOD guidance on the inventory of contracted services requires the designation of an accountable official. As of the summer of 2017, the Department of the Air Force has not yet designated an accountable official.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the inventory of contracted services is integrated into key management decisions as statutorily required, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should identify an accountable official within their departments with responsibility for leading and coordinating efforts across their manpower, budgeting, and acquisition functional communities and, as appropriate, revise guidance, develop plans and enforcement mechanisms, and establish processes.

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

    Comments: As of March 2016, DOD guidance on the inventory of contracted services requires the designation of an accountable official. As of the summer of 2017, the Department of the Navy has not yet designated an accountable official.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the inventory of contracted services is integrated into key management decisions as statutorily required, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should identify an accountable official within their departments with responsibility for leading and coordinating efforts across their manpower, budgeting, and acquisition functional communities and, as appropriate, revise guidance, develop plans and enforcement mechanisms, and establish processes.

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

    Comments: As of March 2016, DOD guidance on the inventory of contracted services requires the designation of an accountable official. As of the summer of 2017, the Department of the Army has not yet designated an accountable official.
    Director: Pendleton, John H
    Phone: (404)679-1816

    2 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To ensure that the geographic combatant commands are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and to improve the transparency of the commands' authorized manpower, assigned personnel, and mission and headquarters-support costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1001.01A to require a comprehensive, periodic evaluation of whether the size and structure of the combatant commands meet assigned missions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: Our review found that DOD has a process for evaluating requests for additional authorized positions, but that it does not periodically evaluate the commands' authorized positions to ensure they are needed to meet the commands' assigned missions. The department did not concur with our recommendation, stating that the combatant commands had already been reduced during previous budget and efficiency reviews. The department also noted that any periodic review of the combatant commands' size and structure must include a review of assigned missions, and that a requirement for a mission review was not appropriate for inclusion in the commands' guiding instruction on personnel requirements. Our report acknowledged and described several actions taken by DOD to manage growth in positions and costs at the combatant commands, including establishing personnel baselines and identifying personnel reductions. We continue to maintain that the actions taken by DOD do not constitute a comprehensive, periodic review because they have not included all authorized positions at the combatant commands. In addition, the department's response does not fully explain why there should not be a requirement for periodic reviews to ensure that the resources meet constantly evolving missions. We continue to believe that institutionalizing a periodic evaluation of all authorized positions would help to systematically align manpower with missions and add rigor to the requirements process. Currently, the Department does not plan to take action to implement this recommendation. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the geographic combatant commands are properly sized to meet their assigned missions and to improve the transparency of the commands' authorized manpower, assigned personnel, and mission and headquarters-support costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders and the secretaries of the military departments, to develop and implement a formal process to gather information on authorized manpower and assigned personnel at the service component commands.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: Our review found that the Joint Staff and combatant commands lacked visibility and oversight over the authorized manpower and personnel at the service component commands. Specifically, we found that the combatant commands and Joint Staff did not have visibility over personnel at the service component commands or access to the service-specific personnel management systems that the service component commands use, and if they need information to determine whether personnel at the service component commands could support the combatant commands' mission requirements they had to request it from the service component commands. The Director, Joint Staff concurred with the recommendation, but did not provide comments on the corrective action to be taken. In a June 2015 update on this recommendation, Joint Staff officials acknowledged they continue to have no insight into the authorized positions of the service component commands which are managed and tracked by the military services. The Joint Staff and combatant commands continue to request information from the service component commands when needed to track authorized positions and actual personnel, the same process we reported on in 2013. Currently, DOD does not plan to take action to implement this recommendation. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3000

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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