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: "Navy ships"

    23 publications with a total of 49 open recommendations including 9 priority recommendations
    Director: Zina Merritt
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment that establishes (1) the desired goal for the shipyards' condition and capabilities; (2) an estimate of the full costs to implement the plan, addressing all relevant requirements, external risk factors, and associated planning costs; and (3) metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments. (Recommendation 1)

    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: The Secretary of the Navy should conduct regular management reviews that include all relevant stakeholders to oversee implementation of the plan, review metrics, assess the progress made toward the goal, and make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that the goal is attained. (Recommendation 2)

    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: The Secretary of the Navy should provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress on the progress the shipyards are making to meet the goal of the comprehensive plan, along with any challenges that hinder that progress, such as cost. This may include reporting on progress to reduce their facilities restoration and modernization backlogs, improve the condition and configuration of the shipyards, and recapitalize capital equipment. (Recommendation 3)

    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.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's management of its prepositioned stocks and reduce potential duplication among the services' programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to revise DOD's strategic policy or include in other department-wide guidance a description of the department's vision and the desired end state for its prepositioned stock programs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's management of its prepositioned stocks and reduce potential duplication among the services' programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to revise DOD's strategic policy or include in other department-wide guidance specific interim goals for achieving that vision and desired end state.

    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: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to revise the Navy's ship delivery policy to clarify what types of deficiencies need to be corrected and what mission capability (including the levels of quality and capability) must be achieved at (1) delivery and (2) when the ship is provided to the fleet (at the obligation work limiting date (OWLD)). In doing so, the Navy should clearly define what constitutes a complete ship and when that should be achieved.

    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: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to reconcile policy with practice to support INSURV's role in making a recommendation for fleet introduction. Accomplishing this may require a study of the current timing of ship trials, and the costs and benefits associated with adding an INSURV assessment prior to providing ships to the fleet.

    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: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to reflect additional ship milestones in Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, including OWLD and readiness to deploy.

    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: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to, in Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, ensure that the criteria used to declare IOC aligns with DOD guidance, and reflect the definition of this milestone in the reports.

    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: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure the Navy thoroughly considers the relative benefits of using FPI contracts for shipbuilding versus other contract types, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a portfolio-wide assessment of the Navy's use of additional incentives on FPI contracts across its shipbuilding programs. This assessment should include a mechanism to share proven incentive strategies for achieving intended cost, schedule, and quality outcomes among contracting and program office officials.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
    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.
    Director: Zina Merritt
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to promote effective implementation of the MAC-MO contracting strategy, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to complete the following action: Assign responsibility to a single entity comprised of representatives from the fleet and shore-based maintenance communities, such as Surface Team 1, to perform systematic assessments of MAC-MO's implementation that include the following: (1) Review of lessons learned and identification of changes to Navy processes, including staffing, needed to support the MAC-MO strategy, (2) Evaluation of performance against anticipated cost, schedule, and quality objectives, as outlined in the MAC-MO acquisition strategy, and (3) Input and recommendations from all Navy parties that participate in the scheduling, planning, budgeting, oversight, and policy development for the repair, maintenance, and modernization of non-nuclear surface ships.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. Navy has since responded that it is in the process of preparing its first biennial report on its assessment of the MAC-MO contracting strategy and this report will address the elements of our recommendation. This first report is due by December 31, 2017. As of early August 2017, the Navy has completed its review of the completed availabilities under the MAC-MO contract and analyzed data.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD has not yet developed a method to evaluate the department's readiness recovery efforts against the agreed-upon goals through objective measurement and systematic analysis. In the Senate Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required DOD to submit a detailed plan for rebuilding the readiness of the military force, to include plans for department-level oversight of service readiness recovery efforts. DOD did not provide this plan by the September 30, 2016 deadline. In October 2016, we confirmed that DOD had begun efforts to develop a plan for rebuilding readiness, but the plan did not materialize. In January 2017, the White House issued an executive order requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a readiness review assessing the current condition of readiness and identifying actions that can be implemented to improve readiness. As of April 2017, DOD had begun taking steps to develop a readiness rebuilding plan, including identifying goals and metrics, as well as identifying challenges preventing the military services from rebuilding readiness. The department had also taken steps to develop a 60-day Action Plan in response to the January 2017 Executive Order. However, DOD had not submitted its plan for rebuilding the readiness of the force to Congress, nor had the department taken steps to fully address this recommendation.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure a more accurate estimate of the expected cost savings under the fiscal year 2013-2017 multiyear procurement, Congress should consider requiring the Navy to update its estimate of savings, which currently reflects only Flight IIA ships, to increase transparency for costs and savings for Congress and the taxpayers, as well as provide improved information to support future multiyear procurement savings estimates.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: To ensure a more accurate estimate of the expected cost savings under the fiscal year 2013-2017 multiyear procurement, we asked Congress to consider requiring the Navy to update its estimate of savings, which currently reflects only Flight IIA ships, to increase transparency for costs and savings for Congress and the taxpayers, as well as provide improved information to support future multi-year procurement savings estimates. Neither the Senate nor House National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) reports for fiscal year 2018 direct the Navy to update its savings and both reports include language authorizing the Navy to pursue a DDG 51 Flight III multi-year procurement contract for fiscal years 2018-2022. We will continue to monitor the status of this matter at least until the NDAA for fiscal year 2018 is enacted, at which time we will close the matter as not implemented if the multi-year procurement is authorized and no savings update requirement is included.
    Recommendation: To better support DDG 51 Flight III oversight, the Secretary of Defense should designate the Flight III configuration as a major subprogram of the DDG 51 program in order to increase the transparency, via Selected Acquisition Reports, of Flight III cost, schedule, and performance baselines within the broader context of the DDG 51 program.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD agreed that visibility into DDG 51 Flight III cost, schedule, and performance is important for oversight, but does not plan to designate Flight III as a major subprogram. No further DOD action has been taken on this recommendation and congressional reports supporting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018--yet to be finalized and enacted--do not include any direction for the department to do so. Nevertheless, with construction of the lead Flight III ship only recently awarded (June 2017), we will continue to monitor any action taken to designate Flight III as a major subprogram.
    Director: Mackin, Michele
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should, before the downselect decision for the frigates, require the program to submit appropriate milestone documentation as identified by OSD, which could include an Independent Cost Estimate, an Acquisition Program Baseline, and a plan to incorporate the frigate into SAR updates.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, noting that the Navy views the LCS transition to the frigate as an incremental upgrade as opposed to a new acquisition program. DOD also stated that the Navy would be required to provide key documentation related to the seaframe, including an independent cost estimate and an updated acquisition program baseline. In 2017, the Navy decided to pursue a different frigate acquisition strategy, and according to the program office, the frigate is now considered a new, distinct acquisition program and will have milestone decisions and require the applicable milestone documentation and OSD oversight and reporting as the program moves toward an award decision in fiscal year 2020. The program office also noted that the specific milestone documentation that will be required is currently being assessed and the program plans to have a frigate Selected Acquisition Report. Once more details are finalized for the program, the planned actions would meet the intention of our recommendation. We will keep this recommendation open until the program's approach has been better defined.
    Director: William J. Cordrey
    Phone: (404) 679-1873

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help provide better visibility of DOD's financial management status for decision makers and to improve oversight of DOD's audit readiness efforts to strengthen internal controls and improve financial practices and processes, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should, while developing other formatting changes to be made in future reports, expand the semiannual FIAR Plan Status Report to include the extent to which assertions of audit readiness have been made without assurance that related controls are effective and the details of remediation activities taken and planned to correct the known internal control deficiencies.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that its future FIAR Plan Status Reports will provide an increased level of detail regarding critical aspects of achieving audit readiness. DOD further stated that it would use the recommendation to develop and, where appropriate, enhance future semiannual Status Reports to include greater visibility into the progress and impediments related to PP&E audit readiness. Specifically, DOD stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will work with the military departments to ensure that their audit readiness plans include specific milestones for addressing internal control deficiencies. The Comptroller expects completion by the November 2017 FIAR report. We will continue to evaluate DOD's actions to address this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To help provide better visibility of DOD's financial management status for decision makers and to improve oversight of DOD's audit readiness efforts to strengthen internal controls and improve financial practices and processes, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should, while developing other formatting changes to be made in future reports, expand the semiannual FIAR Plan Status Report to include the details of military services' actions taken and progress made toward correcting the control deficiencies underlying the reported dealbreakers.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that its future FIAR Plan Status Reports will provide an increased level of detail regarding critical aspects of achieving audit readiness. DOD further stated that it would use the recommendation to develop and, where appropriate, enhance future semiannual Status Reports to include greater visibility into the progress and impediments related to PP&E audit readiness. Specifically, DOD stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will work with the military departments to ensure that their audit readiness plans include specific milestones for addressing internal control deficiencies. The Comptroller expects completion by the November 2017 FIAR report. We will continue to evaluate DOD's actions to address this recommendation.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, in arrangements where the shipbuilder is paid to correct defects, to structure contract terms such that shipbuilders do not earn profit for correcting construction deficiencies following delivery that are determined to be their responsibility.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, and has completed a study reviewing our findings. The study, conducted by the CNA Analysis and Solutions, found that our recommendations were well founded and appropriate. In response to our report and the study, the Navy states it will provide written guidance by the end of 2017 to prevent shipbuilders from earning profit for correcting shipbuilder-responsible defects.
    Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to establish and document a clear objective for using a guaranty, and then create guidance for contracting officers that illustrates how to implement a guaranty that meets this objective. This guidance should describe how contracting officers should use aspects of the guaranty, including determining an appropriate limitation of liability, to achieve the objective and include considerations as to when a guaranty should be a separate contract line item.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, and agreed to conduct a study to determine what policy and guidance changes are necessary to provide guidance on the many factors that should be considered to effectively implement warranty and guaranty provisions. As of April 2017, this study is complete and the Navy states that it now concurs with our recommendation. In doing so, the Navy is drafting an instruction, including a decision template, laying out the considerations underlying the decision to use warranties, guarantees or other mechanisms. This instruction will help contracting officers choose an appropriate tool and document the decision in a business clearance memorandum. The Navy plans to implement the instruction by the end of 2017.
    Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, for future ship construction contracts, to determine whether or not a warranty as provided in the FAR, provides value and document the costs, benefits, and other factors used to make this decision. To inform this determination, the Navy should begin differentiating the government's and shipbuilder's responsibility for defects and track the costs to correct all defects after ship delivery.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, and has completed a study reviewing our findings. The study, conducted by the CNA Analysis and Solutions, found that our recommendations were well founded and appropriate. In response to our report and the study, the Navy states it will include separate contract line items for FAR-type warranties in at least two solicitations for ship construction. In addition, the Navy states that it plans to revise data requirements to better gather and track contractor responsible defects, and then develop analytical methods to help make better determinations in the future as to the optimal guaranty duration and limit of liability. They expect to complete these activities by December 2017.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy has provided a clear direction for the future of the program before committing funding to construct additional ships, Congress should consider, given the uncertainties over the long term about the ship's survivability and lethality and proposed changes to future ships, consider not fully funding the Navy's request for future LCS ships beyond fiscal year 2016, pending the completion and analysis of the final survivability assessments for both variants due in 2018.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: Although Congress did not take action on this Matter for Congressional Consideration in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, we will continue to monitor this matter to see if Congress implements future restrictions prior to the final survivability assessments being completed. The Navy's final survivability assessment report is planned for fiscal year 2018, with DOT&E's assessment to follow.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Navy has a sound acquisition approach moving forward, the Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to solicit an independent technical assessment from an organization like a ship classification society on the survivability of the Independence variant seaframe and its ability to meet its applicable requirements.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation advocating an independent technical assessment by a classification society, stating that such an organization could not provide an independent look and was not technically competent to conduct such an evaluation. To fully implement this recommendation, we continue to believe that an independent assessment performed by the American Bureau of Shipping, or some other independent entity with relevant subject matter expertise would be valuable to understanding seaframe performance, which remains a significant uncertainty. Although the Navy has conducted rough water, ship shock, and total ship survivability testing, it has not demonstrated that the ship will achieve survivability requirements. Completion of the final survivability assessment report is anticipated in fiscal year 2018. Further, although the Navy has not completed its analytical reports of the rough water events, both Littoral Combat Ship variants sustained some damage, and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, has expressed concern with the testing and results from full ship shock trials and total ship survivability testing. An independent technical assessment of the Independence variant's survivability would help solidify the Navy's understanding of the ship's expected performance, and takes on added relevance given that the Navy's plans for a frigate award in fiscal year 2020 may include a downselect decision to a Littoral Combat Ship-based seaframe design. In July 2017, the LCS Program Office indicated that there is no additional information to provide, as the Navy maintains its non-concurrence with this recommendation. We will continue monitoring this recommendation to see if the Navy solicits such an evaluation, given continuing concerns about the ships survivability from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the program has requirements that are testable and measurable and to improve realism of LCS operational testing, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to investigate resourcing and conducting more operationally stressing SUW mission package testing onboard LCS, to include testing in a clutter environment and diverse weather and tactical scenarios to help ensure that the ships can operate effectively in their intended environment.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendation, stating it will provide sufficient test resources but does not believe that testing 'every aspect' of weather and tactics is necessary. The Navy has since received DOT&E approval of a partial update to the LCS Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), which was required before March 2016 by a restriction included in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2016. According to the department, the update included changes to the scope of SUW mission package testing. The LCS Program Office stated that a full LCS TEMP is expected to be approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the last quarter of fiscal year 2017. OSD approval of the TEMP would likely meet the intent of our recommendation; however, until it is approved, we will monitor the TEMP status and keep this recommendation open.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To balance combatant commanders' demands for forward presence with the Navy's needs to sustain a ready force over the long term and identify and mitigate risks consistent with Federal Standards for Internal Control, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to develop a comprehensive assessment of the long-term costs and risks to the Navy's surface and amphibious fleet associated with its increasing reliance on overseas homeporting to meet presence requirements, make any necessary adjustments to its overseas presence based on this assessment, and reassess these risks when making future overseas homeporting decisions and developing future strategic laydown plans.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Navy had not completed their assessment.
    Director: Zina Merritt
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD's future submissions of the Biennial Core Report will be more accurate and complete, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness to assess the review processes and implement needed improvements.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 10, 2015, the Assistant Secretary of Defense Logistics and Materiel Readiness stated that the process for developing and issuing DOD's Biennial Core Report has been reviewed and two corrective actions have been identified. First, a tasking memorandum for the military service to submit their input for the DOD Core Capability Report will be issued in October instead of December. This tasking will also require each submitting military service to include a certification by a General/Flag Officer or Senior Executive Service member that their military service's data is complete and accurate. Second, the extra time will allow Office of Secretary of Defense staff to conduct a more thorough review of the military service's submitted data to verify completeness and accuracy. These actions will not be complete until April 2016 which is when DOD will submit its next Core Capability Report. As of July 2016, DOD made the two corrective actions above. However, the 2016 DOD Biennial Core Report still contained data errors and inaccurate information, therefore these process improvements did not make the report more complete and accurate.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should require--before approving the release of the request for proposals for future contracts for either seaframe variant--that both variants: a. Have deployed to a forward overseas location; b. Have completed rough water, ship shock, and total ship survivability testing; and c. Have completed initial operational test and evaluation of the SUW mission package on the Freedom variant and the MCM mission package on the Independence variant.

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

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation, stating that it has every intention of completing as many as possible of the test and demonstration items that we identified in our recommendation before releasing the request for proposals (RFP) for future seaframe contracts, but disagreed that the release of the RFP should hinge on completion of these events. DOD officials stated that creating a break in the production of the seaframes would increase program costs and have significant industrial base considerations. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD should ensure that the Navy is procuring Littoral Combat Ships that meet its needs and that it does not continue to commit to additional ships until it demonstrates that it has attained some level of knowledge in key areas, such as ship survivability. The Navy has made progress since we made this recommendation, deploying both variants overseas and completing total ship survivability trials and full ship shock trials (FSST), as well as testing in rough water conditions. The LCS program stated that the results from rough water testing and shock trials are planned to be completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017. Still, the Navy has continued to award additional contracts for LCS before having demonstrated survivability capabilities, with some surface warfare package operational testing yet to be completed and mine countermeasures package initial operational capability delayed until 2020. This recommendation will remain open to allow for future Navy analysis and department action on this subject.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (404) 679-1816

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the quality of the Navy's future decommissioning decisions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to direct the Chief of Naval Operations to document the Navy's early decommissioning in decision memorandums in accordance with the General Policy for the Inactivation, Retirement, and Disposition of U.S. Naval Vessels prior to approving any future recommendations for early decommissioning of Navy ships.

    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 enhance the likelihood that those decisions will be implemented, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to direct the Chief of Naval Operations to update the Navy's General Policy for the Inactivation, Retirement, and Disposition of U.S. Naval Vessels to incorporate key elements of federal standards for internal control, such as communicating with and obtaining information from external stakeholders, comparing actual performance to planned or expected results, evaluating performance measures and indicators, such as risk, and comparing and assessing different sets of data to establish relationships and take appropriate action. In updating the policy, the Chief of Naval Operations should also consider requiring that its early decommissioning decision memorandums specifically address capacity as well as capability gaps.

    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: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that it receives accurate information on the full effect of funding decisions on acquisition programs, Congress should consider amending the law that governs the 5-year Capital Investment Plan to require the Coast Guard to submit cost and schedule information that reflects the impact of the annual President's budget request on each acquisition across the portfolio--in addition to the current practice of reporting the cost and schedule estimates in current program baselines.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: Thus far no action has been taken on this Matter. We will continue to follow up with relevant congressional committees.
    Recommendation: To help the Coast Guard improve the long-term outlook of its portfolio, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop a 20-year fleet modernization plan that identifies all acquisitions needed to maintain the current level of service and the fiscal resources necessary to build the identified assets. The plan should also consider trade-offs if the fiscal resources needed to execute the plan are not consistent with annual budgets.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
    Status: Open

    Comments: Based on this recommendation, Congress has requested that the Coast Guard develop a 20-year plan that identifies all acquisitions needed to maintain the Coast Guard's current level of service and the financial commitment necessary to achieve this plan. As a part of a series of testimonies in June and July 2017, we found that Coast Guard officials stated they are developing a 20-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP), but the timeframe for completion is unknown. The Coast Guard does, however, submit a 5-year CIP annually to Congress that projects acquisition funding needs for the upcoming 5 years. GAO found the CIPs do not match budget realities in that tradeoffs are not included. In the 20-year CIP, GAO would expect to see all acquisitions needed to maintain current service levels and the fiscal resources to build the identified assets as well as tradeoffs in light of funding constraints.
    Director: Mackin, Michele
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    2 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure Ford-class carrier acquisitions are supported by sound requirements and a comprehensive testing strategy, and to promote the introduction of reliable, warfighting capable ships into the fleet, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to take the following action prior to accepting delivery of Gerald R. Ford CVN 78. The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on (1) currently required capabilities, including increased sortie generation rates and reduced manning and (2) the time and money needed to field systems to provide these capabilities, in light of known and projected reliability shortfalls for critical systems. This analysis should be informed by demonstrated system performance from land-based testing, including updated reliability growth projections, and should identify trade space among competing cost, schedule, and performance parameters. The analysis should also consider whether the Navy should seek requirements relief from the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to the extent necessary, to maximize its return on investment to the warfighter. The Navy should report the results of this analysis to Congress within 30 days of CVN 78 commissioning.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: We recommended that DOD conduct a cost-benefit analysis on currently required capabilities, and report the results to Congress within 30 days of CVN 78 commissioning. DOD agreed with our recommendation for a cost-benefit analysis, but disagreed with the timing of it, stating that it plans to measure CVN 78 capabilities through completion of operational testing after ship delivery. Since the release of our report, the Navy completed cost-benefit analyses to determine the acquisition strategy for CVN 79, making two major changes to the ship (replacing the Dual Band Radar (DBR) with a different radar solution and introducing a phased construction and delivery approach.) While these are major program changes, the department did not evaluate the fundamental reason for conducting a cost-benefit analysis, namely that known and projected reliability shortfalls make it unlikely that the program will achieve its sortie generation requirements. In December 2016, an Independent Review Team commissioned by the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics completed a comprehensive assessment of the CVN 78's systems, but did not recommend any capability trade-offs or requirements relief.
    Recommendation: To ensure Ford-class carrier acquisitions are supported by sound requirements and a comprehensive testing strategy, and to promote the introduction of reliable, warfighting capable ships into the fleet, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to take the following action prior to accepting delivery of CVN 78. The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to adjust the planned post-delivery test schedule to ensure that system integration testing is completed prior to entering initial operational test and evaluation.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: Until the Navy updates the test plan in February 2018, we will not know if it will fully address our recommendation. However, recent test schedules suggest an overlap remains between integration testing and the start of initial operational test and evaluation.
    Director: Merritt, Zina Dache
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of July 2016, recent GAO work on this issue shows that DOD has not fully implemented this recommendation. In DOD's 2016 Biennial Core Report, DOD did not provide detailed explanations for all of the services shortfalls identified in its report. We are waiting until DOD's 2018 Biennial Core Report to further update the status of this recommendation.
    Director: Mackin, Michele
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to report to Congress in its annual long-range shipbuilding plan on its plans for a future, larger surface combatant, carrying a more capable version of AMDR and the costs and quantities of this ship.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As in past years, the Congressional Budget Office completed an analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2017 Shipbuilding Plan. The most recent analysis states that the Navy's Long Range Shipbuilding Plan for Fiscal Year 2017 indicates plans to procure 26 DDG 51 Flight III destroyers but provides little specific information regarding a future large surface combatant ship other than noting plans to begin buying the first of 40 ships in 2030 and an estimated cost of $1.9 billion per ship. This lack of detailed information is consistent with past plans. We will keep this recommendation open and will review the Navy's Fiscal Year 2018 plan to determine if greater detail on a future large surface combatant has been developed as a result of changes in the Navy's shipbuilding outlook currently under discussion.