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: Engineering

    13 publications with a total of 35 open recommendations including 1 priority recommendation
    Director: Andrew Sherrill
    Phone: (202) 512-7215

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance the ability of the Executive Office of the President to implement the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 requirements related to reporting on advanced manufacturing, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, working through the National Science and Technology Council and agency leadership, as appropriate, should identify the information they will collect from federal agencies to determine the extent to which the objectives outlined in the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing are being achieved.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy
    Status: Open

    Comments: OSTP did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with this recommendation. They provided some comments on the draft recommendation. For example, OSTP commented that the recommendation could focus on the extent to which the objectives of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) recommendations are being achieved in periodic updates to the implementation of the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. However, these recommendations were not covered in the scope of our report: we focused on reporting on the progress in achieving the objectives of the strategic plan.
    Director: Michele Mackin
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Coast Guard makes effective use of its resources, specifically regarding its budget, the Secretary of DHS should direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to update the Joint Surface Engineering Change Process Guide to require a documented cost analysis to provide decision makers adequate data to make informed decisions regarding the expected costs and when it is most cost effective to install design changes.

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

    Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and is working to determine a consistent, repeatable cost benefit analysis methodology that will be considered with other factors such as safety, schedule impacts, operational impacts, and crew impacts and technical aspects for making design change decisions. This methodology will be incorporated into the Coast Guard's next update to its Joint Surface Engineering Change Process Guide scheduled for December 2017.
    Recommendation: To ensure that the Coast Guard makes effective use of its resources, specifically regarding its budget, the Secretary of DHS should direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to periodically update standard support levels to account for actual expenditures so that the Coast Guard follows best practices and to provide decision makers an understanding of the actual depot-level maintenance funds required for Coast Guard assets.

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

    Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and is working to establish of formal process to use actual depot maintenance expenditure data to inform and update a vessel's life cycle cost estimate. For vessels in sustainment, the Coast Guard is developing a plan to periodically review depot maintenance expenditures and how they should affect the depot maintenance budget. These processes are expected to be completed by October 2017.
    Director: Michael J. Sullivan
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance program oversight and provide more robust input to budget deliberations, Congress should consider requiring DOD to report on each major acquisition program's systems engineering status in the department's annual budget request, beginning with the budget requesting funds to start development. The information could be presented on a simple timeline--as done for the case studies in this report--and at a minimum should reflect the status of a program's functional and allocated baselines as contained in the most current version of the program's systems engineering plan.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: Congress has not yet taken action on the matter for consideration. GAO will continue to monitor.
    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: Anne-Marie Fennell
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve the efficiency of Corps operations at reservoir projects and to assist the Corps in meeting the requirement of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to update the Corps' 1992 reservoir report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop guidance on what activities constitute a review of a water control manual and how to document that review.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. We will provide updates when the agency takes action.
    Recommendation: To help improve the efficiency of Corps operations at reservoir projects and to assist the Corps in meeting the requirement of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 to update the Corps' 1992 reservoir report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to track consistent information on the status of water control manuals, including whether they need revisions, and prioritize revisions as needed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. We will provide updates when the agency takes action.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that risks associated with ALIS are addressed expediently and holistically, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer to improve the reliability of its cost estimates, conduct uncertainty and sensitivity analyses consistent with cost-estimating best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD officials, the F-35 Program regularly performs sensitivity analysis in its cost estimates. The F-35 Cost Team runs drills throughout the year on varying ground rules and assumptions for all elements of the sustainment Annual Cost Estimate (ACE), including ALIS cost elements. These drills are used to assess cost impacts of various proposed requirements changes from the F-35 Program Office and the Services. The cost models capture the sensitivity of those technical baseline changes and the F-35 Program Office and Services use those results to inform the final technical baseline definition that becomes the basis of the annual estimate update. Although these measures are regularly performed, they do not constitute a direct uncertainty or sensitivity analysis on ALIS itself. For that reason, as of September 2017, this recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To ensure that risks associated with ALIS are addressed expediently and holistically, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer to improve the reliability of its cost estimates, ensure that future estimates of ALIS costs use historical data as available and reflect significant program changes consistent with cost-estimating best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD officials, as part of the cost estimating processes in the F-35 Program Office, the sustainment Annual Cost Estimate does incorporate the latest available historical cost data and reflects the latest approved technical baseline. For example, the latest hardware procurement costs from the most recent annual contracts for the F-35 were incorporated into the 2016 Annual Cost Estimate update as were the manpower assembly installation costs based on final delivered item prices. Although these are positive measures for the program and the cost estimate, the program has not incorporated a range of potential future costs that may better reflect actual ALIS costs. Until this step is taken, the recommendation will remain open.
    Director: Timothy J. DiNapoli
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD has the right people with the right skills to meet future needs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Director, Human Capital Initiatives to issue guidance to focus component hiring efforts using the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund on priority career fields.

    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 concurred with our recommendation, but has not taken the full actions necessary to implement it. Human Capital Initiatives issued updated guidance on the use of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund in 2016 and 2017 but the guidance did not focus component hiring efforts on specific career fields. The officials stated that the DOD military departments and other DOD components determine their own requirements for the acquisition workforce, including which career fields to identify as critical. In a March 2017 report, we noted that the Army's fiscal year 2017 DAWDF guidance, which was issued in 2016, identified priority career fields where DAWDF funded hiring efforts could be focused, while the Air Force's and Navy's guidance did not. The Army's fiscal year 2018 DAWDF guidance also identified priority career fields, including business (which includes financial management and cost estimating) contracting, systems engineering, and science and technology.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD has the right people with the right skills to meet future needs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Director, Human Capital Initiatives to ensure the functional leader for the production, quality, and manufacturing career field completes an initial competency assessment.

    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 concurred with the recommendation. Officials within the Human Capital Initiatives (HCI) office stated that DOD initiated a strategic analysis in fiscal year 2017 to better understand the acquisition workforce performing Production, Quality, and Manufacturing (PQM) functions. This analysis will help identify how best to structure the PQM career field in order to manage this workforce in a more effective and efficient manner. Initial analysis findings are expected by the end of 2017 and will be used to inform a PQM competency assessment. HCI will partner with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to use their competency assessment team to conduct competency assessments for each acquisition functional career field. The plan is to conduct four assessments annually, starting in October 2017 with an anticipated completion date for all career fields by 2021.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DOD has the right people with the right skills to meet future needs, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Director, Human Capital Initiatives to establish time frames, in collaboration with functional leaders, to complete future career field competency assessments.

    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 concurred with the recommendation and has taken some steps to implement it. The Human Capital Initiatives (HCI) office issued an updated strategic acquisition workforce plan in 2016. This plan stated that conducting career field competency assessments at a minimum of every five years helps the acquisition workforce to effectively manage their careers. Officials within the HCI office stated that they will partner with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to use their competency assessment team to conduct competency assessments for each acquisition functional career field. The plan is to conduct four career field assessments a year, starting in October 2017 with an anticipated completion date for all career fields by 2021.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better determine the costs needed to sustain the equipment to support a Marine Air Ground Task Force capability, the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics to incorporate the four characteristics of reliable cost estimates in the Marine Corps' forthcoming prepositioning programs budget development policy, and specifically to ensure that estimates are accurate and well-documented, require all relevant departments and subordinate commands to provide documentation of cost-estimating details that include both source data and calculations.

    Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
    Status: Open

    Comments: Based on our review of DOD's database on DOD's actions addressing GAO recommendations and follow up with DOD officials, as of September 1, 2017, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To better determine the costs needed to sustain the equipment to support a Marine Air Ground Task Force capability, the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics to incorporate the four characteristics of reliable cost estimates in the Marine Corps' forthcoming prepositioning programs budget development policy, and specifically to ensure that estimates are credible, implement management requirements to establish and conduct formal cross-checks of major cost elements among the relevant departments and subordinate commands to determine whether they are replicable.

    Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
    Status: Open

    Comments: Based on our review of DOD's database on DOD's actions addressing GAO recommendations and follow up with DOD officials, as of September 1, 2017, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
    Recommendation: To better determine the costs needed to sustain the equipment to support a Marine Air Ground Task Force capability, the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics to incorporate the four characteristics of reliable cost estimates in the Marine Corps' forthcoming prepositioning programs budget development policy, and specifically to ensure that estimates are comprehensive, implement a standardized structure for collecting all the necessary details used to develop and support cost estimates from all relevant departments and subordinate commands.

    Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
    Status: Open

    Comments: Based on our review of DOD's database on DOD's actions addressing GAO recommendations and follow up with DOD officials, as of September 1, 2017, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
    Recommendation: As part of its quality assurance program for ensuring that the Marine Corps has accurate and reliable information on inventory data for stored assets used to support combatant commanders' requirements, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in consultation with the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization, should take steps to update the Technical Manual on Logistics Support for the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program - Norway and the Local Bilateral Agreement, to incorporate guidance and instructions on conducting a quality assurance review that assesses the accuracy and reliability of the Norwegian Equipment Information Management System.

    Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
    Status: Open

    Comments: Based on our review of DOD's database on DOD's actions addressing GAO recommendations and follow up with DOD officials, as of September 1, 2017, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
    Director: David C. Trimble
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve transparency in future NNSA budget materials so that they are more useful for congressional decision makers, the Administrator of NNSA should, in instances where NNSA's internal cost estimates for a life extension program suggest that additional funding may be needed beyond what is included in the 5-year budget estimates to align with the program's plan, identify the amount of the shortfall in its budget materials and, what, if any, effect the shortfall may have on the program's cost and schedule or the risk of achieving program objectives.

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

    Comments: In commenting on the report, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) agreed with this recommendation and outlined planned actions to incorporate the recommendation into the agency's fiscal year 2017 budget materials. However, the level of additional transparency for life extension programs in NNSA's fiscal year 2017 budget materials appears mixed. GAO will conduct additional follow-up with NNSA in 2017 following release of the fiscal year 2018 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan to clarify and assess prospects for further transparency with respect to funding shortfalls for life extension programs.
    Recommendation: To improve transparency in future NNSA budget materials so that they are more useful for congressional decision makers, the Administrator of NNSA should, in instances where budget estimates do not achieve DOE benchmarks for maintenance and recapitalization investment over the 5-year budget estimates, identify in the budget materials the amount of the shortfall and the effects, if any, on the deferred maintenance backlog.

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

    Comments: In commenting on the report, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) agreed with this recommendation and outlined planned actions to incorporate the recommendation into the agency's fiscal year 2017 budget materials. However, the fiscal year 2017 NNSA budget materials do not support the benchmarked levels of funding needed to address maintenance and recapitalization, and there was no apparent discussion of the shortfall and likely effects on the deferred maintenance backlog in those materials. GAO will follow up on this recommendation in 2017 and 2018 to assess adequacy of funding in NNSA's fiscal year 2018 and 2019 budget materials and any applicable explanations of shortfalls.
    Director: Marie A. Mak
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

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

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Commerce
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

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

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

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

    Agency: Department of the Treasury
    Status: Open

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

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken any actions necessary to implement it. In Sept. 2017, State provided updates on actions taken within the department, but none across affected agencies.
    Director: Robert Goldenkoff
    Phone: (202) 512-2757

    2 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To improve the classification system and to strengthen OPM's management and oversight, the Director of OPM, working through the Chief Human Capital Officer Council, and in conjunction with key stakeholders such as the Office of Management and Budget, unions, and others, should use prior studies and lessons learned from demonstration projects and alternative systems to examine ways to make the GS system's design and implementation more consistent with the attributes of a modern, effective classification system. To the extent warranted, develop a legislative proposal for congressional consideration.

    Agency: Office of Personnel Management
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of April 2017, OPM officials said they continue to meet on a regular basis with the Interagency Classification Policy Forum group to inform strategies and action plans for implementation of general schedule system best practices. As a result, they have made changes for conducting occupational studies through various actions, including streamlining their process for conducting occupational studies. These actions include the cancellation of 21 occupational series with minimal agency use (25 or fewer Federal employees reported) and upcoming policy issuances - the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families and the Interpretive Guidance for Cybersecurity Positions and 17 Professional Medical and Health occupational series. In addition, they have developed a methodology to streamline studies for occupational series with 1,000 or less Federal employees. OPM officials said any further action to develop a legislative proposal for congressional consideration would be contingent upon having permanent OPM leadership in place. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts.
    Recommendation: To improve the classification system and to strengthen OPM's management and oversight, the Director of OPM should develop cost-effective mechanisms to oversee agency implementation of the classification system as required by law, and develop a strategy that will enable OPM to more effectively and routinely monitor agencies' implementation of classification standards.

    Agency: Office of Personnel Management
    Status: Open

    Comments: In June 2016, OPM officials said the agency had designed several efforts to improve the classification system and strengthen oversight: (1) OPM is reviewing occupational series post studies to assess whether agencies are implementing classification policy updates and new issuances. (2) Decisions from the classification appeals program are issued to monitor implementation of classification standards. (3) The classification policy group has formalized the participation of the Merit System Accountability and Compliance group to discuss best practices in monitoring and overseeing classification policies and is planning a related classification forum. We will continue to monitor these efforts. Specifically, OPM officials said they were conducting occupational series post studies of custodians, public affairs, financial management, sustainability and other White House initiatives. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts.
    Director: Rebecca Gambler
    Phone: (202) 512-8777

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure DSOs' and students' compliance with OPT requirements, and strengthen efforts to identify and assess potential risks in OPT, the Director of ICE should direct SEVP to develop and distribute guidance to DSOs on how to determine whether a job is related to a student's area of study and require DSOs to provide information in SEVIS to show that they took steps, based on this guidance, to help ensure that the student's work is related to the area of study.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of April 2015, SEVP has made progress in developing employment guidance to support DSOs in determining whether a job is related to a student's area of study and requiring DSOs to provide such information in SEVIS. SEVP stated that it has drafted such guidance and it is being reviewed by SEVP subject matter experts. In addition, SEVP stated that it is developing information requirements for DSOs to attest that they adhered to the new employment guidance document in SEVIS, which requires system enhancements. In May 2016, the new STEM OPT regulation went into effect and, among other things, SEVP officials stated that it requires much greater detail on the scope of the employment and how it is related to the earned degree. As of October 2016, SEVP expects that non-STEM guidance on field of study would be finalized by the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. In May 2017, SEVP officials stated they had been revising the guidance and that it was undergoing final revisions, as planned. However, according to SEVP officials, due to the Executive Order on regulatory reform, ICE guidance updates were placed on hold with no clear date as to when SEVP would be able to publish the guidance. To fully address this recommendation, ICE should develop and distribute non-STEM-related guidance on determining whether a job is related to a student's area of study and require DSOs to provide relevant information in SEVIS.
    Director: Clark, Cheryl E
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    7 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Director of Finance at Commission headquarters to monitor monthly cash reconciliations for all Fund Balance with Treasury accounts Commissionwide to ensure their completeness and accuracy.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During fiscal year 2012, the Commission contracted with the Interior Business Center (IBC) to perform its monthly cash reconciliations with Treasury. During our testing, we found that IBC effectively reconciled cash on hand to Treasury records. However, we found that ABMC did not effectively monitor IBC's reconciliations. Specifically, ABMC did not document its review of the FMS-224 and Fund Balance with Treasury reconciliations performed by IBC. To fully address this recommendation, ABMC needs to document its review of the IBC prepared reconciliations to ensure they are accurate and complete. During fiscal year 2017, the Commission informed us that they plan to develop and implement corrective actions to address our recommendation. Therefore, we will follow up on this open recommendation at a later date.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Director of Human Resources and Administration at Commission headquarters to maintain a consolidated Active Contracts List, or require the Paris Overseas Office to maintain a separate list, with information on each contract including the name of the contact person; the status of work completed; whether retainage amounts had been paid; and whether any amounts were pending due to disagreements on work performed.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During our fiscal year 2012 audit, although the Commission provided GAO with active contract lists, we determined that these lists were not consolidated nor were they adequately maintained by the director of Engineering. We also continued to find instances where the Commission did not properly close contracts and deobligate funds. In addition, the Commission could not identify any specific actions taken to address this recommendation. During our fiscal year 2017 follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement an automated procurement system that will meet the intent of our recommendation. Therefore, we will follow up on this open recommendation at a later date.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Director of Human Resources and Administration at Commission headquarters to ensure that the Active Contracts List is reconciled to contracts on the undelivered orders report produced by the Commission's accounting system.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During our fiscal year 2012 audit, we found that the Headquarters active contracts list had not been reconciled to the undelivered orders account. In addition, we concluded that these lists were not adequately maintained. We also continued to find instances where the Commission did not properly close contracts and deobligate funds. In addition, the Commission could not identify any specific actions taken to address this recommendation. During our fiscal year 2017 follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to develop and implement procurement-related standard operating procedures to address our recommendation. Therefore, we will follow-up on this recommendation at a later date.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Director of Finance at Commission headquarters to follow existing budgetary procedures to ensure that contracts are officially agreed to and executed as of or before the date of obligation.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During our fiscal year 2011 audit of the American Battle Monuments Commission's financial statements, the Commission informed us that this recommendation was implemented with FMS and that ABMC now follows commitment accounting which prevents contracts from being signed before funds are reserved. During our 2012 testing we continued to monitor and we found no related issues. However, the Commission was unable to provide documentation or support for the corrective action instituted with FMS. During our fiscal year 2017 follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement an automated procurement system that will meet the intent of our recommendation. Therefore, we will follow up on this open recommendation at a later date.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Director of Human Resources at the Commission's Paris Overseas Office to follow existing policy to prepare, approve, and file current forms to support pay changes in foreign employee's official personnel file.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During our fiscal year 2012 audit, we tested a sample of payroll transactions and found that not all personnel files contained accurate forms to support current payroll information. In one sample, the ABM-87 was not approved by a Director or designee. In another sample, the salary for the grade and step did not match that of the employee's local compensation plan. In a third sample, the employee's salary was not updated for a General Schedule step increase until almost a year later. During our fiscal year 2017 follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement an automated HR system that will meet the intent of our recommendation. Therefore, we will follow up on this open recommendation at a later date
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Director of Human Resources at the Commission's Paris Overseas Office to establish a consistent policy for Paris and Rome offices to support changes in employee's official personnel files by using an SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action, for all employees.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During fiscal year 2012, we determined that the Commission's policy is to use two forms for payroll actions. The headquarters office processes SF-50s for General Schedule (GS) employees and the Paris office uses SF-50s for GS employees and ABM-87s for foreign employees. We did not find any exception with this policy as the SF-50 is a required form for processing payroll actions for GS employees and the ABM 87 is a standard form for processing payroll actions for foreign employees. However, this policy is not documented. To clarify the intent of this recommendation, which is for the Commission to be consistent in processing payroll actions, we issued a subsequent recommendation that calls for the Commission to direct appropriate officials to establish written policies and procedures outlining the key tasks, roles, and responsibilities of both the Human Resources Directorate and the Finance Directorate, including a formal mechanism for communicating all decisions and actions related to processing payroll for foreign employees. This would include the processing of payroll actions. During our fiscal year 2017 follow-up, the Commission informed us that training was provided to employees in the proper production of personnel documentation, however, no policy was provided. Therefore, we will follow up on this open recommendation at a later date.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of the Commission should instruct the Finance Directorate's Finance Officer at the Commission's Paris Overseas Office to modify existing accounting procedures to instruct Finance Directorate personnel to enter the date on the invoice into the accounting system.

    Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: During our audit of the American Battle Monuments Commission's (the Commission) fiscal year 2010 financial statements, we found that Commission controls were not always effective in ensuring that the receipt and acceptance of goods and services were properly authorized and that invoice dates were accounted for in a consistent manner. The Commission informed us that all Finance personnel were instructed to enter both the invoice receipt date and the invoice date when processing invoices for payment. However, during our fiscal year 2012 audit, we found that the date on the invoice was not consistently entered into the accounting system. For example, we found inconsistencies with the invoice receipt date being entered into the accounting system as either the date the goods were received, the date the invoice was received, or the date the invoice was being entered into the financial system. In addition, we could not verify whether current accounting procedures included this requirement. During our fiscal year 2017 follow-up, the Commission informed us that the invoice date entered in Oracle is taken directly from the invoice approval stamp, however, the Commission was not able to provide a policy, procedures, or statement of work supporting the actions taken. We contacted the agency to ask for further information but no response was received within the established deadline for us to conduct our follow up. Therefore, we will follow up on this recommendation at a later date.