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: Buildings

    6 publications with a total of 19 open recommendations
    Director: Michael J. Courts
    Phone: (202) 512-8980

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better assess OBO's performance, the Secretary of State should determine whether the existing OBO program performance measure and annual target of moving 1,500 people into safe, secure, and functional facilities is still appropriate or needs to be revised.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: OBO stated that it would perform a multi-year, comprehensive evaluation of this performance metric and determine whether the target remains appropriate. As of October 2017, OBO anticipated this evaluation to be completed in fiscal year 2019.
    Recommendation: To better assess OBO's performance, the Secretary of State should establish additional performance measures applicable to the new goals of the Excellence approach in support of the Capital Security Construction Program.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of October 2017, OBO had stated it would develop Excellence-related performance metrics to assess the execution and delivery of its projects. Specifically, these would be tied to the Bureau's strategic plan, which is reviewed annually and updated every three years. The next strategic plan update was estimated to occur in early 2020.
    Recommendation: To better assess OBO's performance, the Secretary of State should finalize the mechanisms OBO will use to better track and evaluate the actual operations and maintenance performance of its buildings--whether Excellence or SED--and document through appropriate policies, procedures, or guidance.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of October 2017, OBO was engaged in a life cycle cost analysis methodology project intended to take an in-depth look at OBO's processes, practices, and procedures, compare and contrast them with best industry practices, and make recommendations to the bureau. OBO anticipated finalizing this by early 2018.
    Recommendation: To better assess OBO's performance, the Secretary of State should finalize the mechanisms OBO will use to centrally manage project management data (to include project cost and schedule information), currently termed the Ideal Operational State, and document through appropriate policies, procedures, or guidance.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of October 2017, OBO was working on the implementation of its Ideal Operational State initiative, which it envisioned as a multi-year effort subject to budget realities. OBO anticipates having an integrated program schedule by early 2018, although full implementation would take longer.
    Director: David J. Wise
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the reliability of FRPP disposal data, the Administrator of GSA should implement a data validation procedure to prevent reporting the same building disposal multiple times.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that government-wide data were generally reliable for reporting on real property disposals for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. However, GAO identified a minor inconsistency wherein agencies can report the same building disposed of multiple times. Specifically, GAO found 132 buildings that were reported as disposed of in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 that had already been reported as disposed of in a previous reporting cycle. For the 2015 reporting year, 121 buildings reported as disposed of were also reported in other fiscal years from 2011 through 2014. When GAO asked about these cases in which buildings were reported as disposed of multiple times, GSA officials stated that the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) does not have a data validation procedure that prevents agencies from reporting disposals in multiple reporting cycles. Ensuring that a data validation procedure is put in place is important because without this control, building disposals can be overstated. GAO recommended that GSA implement a data validation procedure to prevent reporting the same building disposal multiple times. In response to GAO's recommendation, GSA developed a business validation procedure and added the following language to its 2017 FRPP data dictionary to prevent over-reporting: FRPP business rule validation prohibits reporting a disposed asset multiple times. An asset that has been reported disposed cannot be reported disposed in subsequent years. Agencies cannot dispose of the same asset multiple times. For example, if an asset was reported disposed by an agency in fiscal year 2014, then the agency should not report the asset as disposed in the current fiscal year. Instead, it should delete the record from its data submission, so that the asset appears in FRPP's missing asset report. In the missing asset report, the agency should note that the asset had been reported disposed in a prior fiscal year. This business rule should result in fewer over-reported disposed buildings to FRPP thereby enabling agencies to make sound real property management decisions based on more reliable disposal data.
    Recommendation: To improve the accuracy of reporting on progress in reducing the inventory of federal buildings, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the GSA Administrator, should establish a procedure to verify that the OMB's reports include the intended data, such as, reporting individual buildings only once and reporting only federally owned buildings.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, OMB has taken some initial steps to coordinate with GSA to establish a procedure to verify that OMB's reports included the intended data.
    Director: Lori Rectanus
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    8 open recommendations
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should establish a plan with timeframes for reaching agreement on a joint strategy and finalizing it in order to define and articulate a common understanding of expected outcomes and align the two agencies' activities and core processes to achieve their related missions.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, FPS reported that it will begin the process for completing a joint strategy for federal security once its memorandum of agreement with the General Services Administration is updated and signed.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should establish a plan with timeframes for reaching agreement on a joint strategy and finalizing it in order to define and articulate a common understanding of expected outcomes and align the two agencies' activities and core processes to achieve their related missions.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, GSA reported that until FPS works with GSA specifically on the joint strategy, no final document will be released.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should establish a plan with timeframes for reaching agreement on the two agencies' respective roles and responsibilities for federal facility security, and update and finalize the two agencies' MOA accordingly.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, FPS reported that it is working internally to prepare the memorandum of agreement for review and signature by the FPS Director, pending no additional changes are required to the document.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should establish a plan with timeframes for reaching agreement on the two agencies' respective roles and responsibilities for federal facility security, and update and finalize the two agencies' MOA accordingly.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, GSA reported sending a final MOA draft to FPS in December 2015 and stated that it hopes to have a signed MOA by both agencies when leadership is in place.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should develop a process to ensure that compatible policies and procedures, including those for information sharing, are communicated at the regional level so that regional officials at both agencies have common information on how to operationalize the two agencies' collaborative efforts.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, FPS reported that it will begin the process for the issuance of a joint field guidance for working with the General Services Administration (GSA) once its memorandum of agreement with GSA is updated and signed.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should develop a process to ensure that compatible policies and procedures, including those for information sharing, are communicated at the regional level so that regional officials at both agencies have common information on how to operationalize the two agencies' collaborative efforts.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, GSA reported developing and releasing "GSA Order 1000.1 Document Security for Handling Facility Security Assessments" to ensure that when GSA receives a Facility Security Assessment from FPS, it will be handled in a consistent, appropriate manner.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on their collaborative efforts to protect federal facilities in order to identify possible areas for improvement and to reinforce accountability.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, FPS reported that it will begin the process for the appointment of an FPS-GSA Liaison once its memorandum of agreement with GSA is updated and signed.
    Recommendation: Given the collaboration challenges that FPS and GSA face in protecting federal facilities, GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. FPS and GSA headquarters officials should develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on their collaborative efforts to protect federal facilities in order to identify possible areas for improvement and to reinforce accountability.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, GSA reported that the updated MOA will cover this recommendation once signed.
    Director: David Wise
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To assist in determining progress toward a long-term, sustainable portfolio, the Administrator of GSA should identify the gap between the portfolio's current level of performance and the level necessary to sustain the portfolio. As part of this effort, GSA should review its tiering and core asset analysis measures and update them to provide more precise measures that can be used in identifying this performance gap.

    Agency: General Services Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of June 2017, GSA has developed an Asset Repositioning Tool to build upon and replace its tiering and core asset analysis measures. The tool uses 10 measures of asset performance related to customer, asset, and market indicators to determine an asset's performance. According to GSA, the tool allows for a more refined analysis in determining an asset's performance and enables GSA to identify and rank assets that should be held long-term and those which are low-performing and should be studied to determine their future place in the portfolio. GSA intends to use the tool at the start of every fiscal year to analyze its portfolio and use the results to inform its investment decisions and decisions to hold or dispose of lower-performing assets. GSA believes that use of the tool to support its asset management practices will enable it to better assess the performance gap within and take actions to promote the sustainability of its portfolio. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this tool in assessing asset performance and using the results to work toward establishment of a long-term, sustainable portfolio.
    Director: Wise, David J
    Phone: (202) 512-2834

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure the quality of both the more detailed data that agencies collect on their structures and the summary information submitted in the FRPP, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should, in collaboration with FRPC, develop guidance to improve agencies' internal controls to produce consistent, accurate, and reliable data on their structures.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm the actions that OMB has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Aloise, Eugene E
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide Congress with better information on the status and progress of DNN program performance and to address clarity, reliability, and balance issues in the performance measures for specific programs, the Administrator of NNSA should develop clearer measures, especially for the Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development (R&D) program and Material Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A) programs, so the requirements and scope of program efforts can be more easily understood. For the MPC&A program in particular, reconsider the practice under its performance measure of counting buildings and facilities as having "completed" MPC&A upgrades, where there is additional or ongoing security work under way or planned.

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

    Comments: According to NNSA officials, neither the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D performance measure nor the MPC&A program performance measure were changed in response to our recommendation to provide further clarity it NNSA's performance reporting. Regarding the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program performance measures, NNSA officials stated the measures as written provide sufficient information to program management to assess progress; regarding the MPC&A program performance measure, NNSA officials said that the measure, while unchanged, was being phased out as a performance measure due to the discontinuation of program work in Russia. GAO raised similar concerns regarding the clarity of the performance measures for the DNN R&D program -- the successor program to the Nonproliferation and Verification R&D program -- in a February 2017 report (GAO-17-210). GAO will will follow up with NNSA in fiscal year 2018 on both GAO-12-71 and GAO-17-210, including reviewing NNSA's fiscal year 2019 budget request, to assess any actions taken by the agency to clarify its publicly reported R&D performance measure.
    Recommendation: To streamline and eliminate potential for fragmentation and overlap among U.S. government programs involved in preventing and detecting smuggling of nuclear materials, equipment, and technologies overseas, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs should undertake--or direct and delegate an appropriate agency or agencies to undertake--a comprehensive review of the structure, scope, and composition of agencies and programs across the federal government involved in such efforts. Such a review should assess several issues, including: (1) the level of overlap and duplication among agencies and programs, especially in the provision of nuclear detection equipment and in training provided to foreign border security, customs, and law enforcement officials; (2) potential for consolidation of these functions to fewer programs and agencies; (3) the feasibility, costs, and benefits of establishing a special coordinator to preside over the allocation of U.S. counter-nuclear-smuggling assistance to foreign nations and be responsible for directing the interagency process of development, funding, and implementation of all U.S. government programs related to combating nuclear smuggling overseas; and (4) any U.S. laws that would need to be amended by Congress in order to facilitate consolidation, elimination, or other changes to existing programs.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of November 2016, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs has not demonstrated progress on comprehensively reviewing the structure, scope, and composition of agencies and programs across the federal government involved in efforts to combat nuclear smuggling overseas, as GAO recommended in December 2011. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs did not comment on the December 2011 recommendation. The National Security Council Staff (NSCS), who assist the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, informed GAO in November 2012 that the recommendation had been provided to the appropriate NSCS directorate for consideration in the NSCS-led interagency policy committee process. However, the NSCS did not provide further information, except for stating that the issue was being addressed within the interagency process. GAO most recently contacted the NSCS for additional information in August 2016 on the actions the NSCS had taken or intended to take, if any, to implement the recommendation. In November 2016, NSCS informed GAO that they had no comments on the recommendation. In the absence of more specific information from NSCS, GAO was unable to conclude that this recommendation has been addressed.
    Recommendation: Following this review, to ensure remaining programs are being coordinated and implemented effectively, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs should issue new guidance that incorporates the elements of effective strategic plans, including clearly delineating the roles and missions of relevant programs, specific priorities and objectives, performance measures and targets, overall program cost estimates, and projected time frames for program completion.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of November 2016, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs has not demonstrated progress on issuing new guidance for federal programs combating nuclear smuggling overseas that includes the elements of effective strategic plans, as GAO recommended in December 2011. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs did not comment on the December 2011 recommendation. The National Security Council Staff (NSCS), who assist the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, informed GAO in November 2012 that the recommendation had been provided to the appropriate NSCS directorate for consideration in the NSCS-led interagency policy committee process. However, NSCS did not provide further information, except for stating that the issue was being addressed within the interagency process. GAO most recently contacted the NSCS in August 2016 to request additional information on the actions the NSCS had taken or intended to take, if any, to implement the recommendation. In November 2016, NSCS informed GAO that they had no comments on the recommendation. In the absence of more specific information from NSCS, GAO was unable to conclude that this recommendation has been addressed.