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: "Position descriptions"

    1 publication with a total of 3 open recommendations
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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