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
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   


    Subject Term: "Cost driver"

    1 publication with a total of 1 open recommendation
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve transparency of costs and the efficiency of suitability andpersonnel security clearance background investigation processes thatcould lead to cost savings, the Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, in the capacity as Chair of the Performance Accountability Council, should expand and specify reform-related guidance to help ensure that reform stakeholders identify opportunities for cost savings, such as preventing duplication in the development of electronic case-management and adjudication technologies in the suitability determination and personnel security clearance processes.

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

    Comments: In July 2013, OMB provided GAO with an update to this recommendation. Although OMB has not yet issued guidance to help ensure that reform stakeholders identify opportunities for cost savings, OMB noted that it continues to work with Executive Agents on activities that reduce duplication in electronic case management and adjudication technologies for the suitability determination and personnel security clearance processes and provided four examples of those activities. (1)In March 2012, OMB's Office of E-Government and Information Technology began meeting with OPM regarding opportunities to enhance the functionality of non-DoD adjudicative entities that are serviced by OPM's Central Verification System, a subsystem of OPM's Personnel Investigation Processing System. (2) In March 2012, OPM provided programming language to the National Security Agency for the Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (EQIP), which the PAC previously identified as the Executive Branch solution for all investigation requests/applications. Since, NSA has begun development of a single classified automated EQIP solution for the Intelligence Community (IC). (3) In May 2012, DoD directed the consolidation of the seven non-IC DOD Central Adjudication Facilities under a single centralized authority. This more efficiently allocates adjudicative resources in a single case management system. (4) In anticipation of the IC's move to a cloud computing environment, ODNI's Special Security Directorate has begun discussion with IC components on how best to support further standardization and prevent duplication as they develop and modify IT systems to implement investigative and adjudicative training standards, respond to reporting requirements, and implement revised adjudicative guidelines. (5) The PAC, the Security Executive Agent, and DOD continue to promote the adoption of the DOD eAdjudication system (CATS) solution within other agencies across Government. The CATS e-Processing Suite (e-Delivery, e-Screening, and e-Adjudication processes) eliminates manual processes and realizes adjudicative efficiencies through the use of technology. DoD recently reported that During FY2012, e-Delivery saved the DoD approximately 590,000 hours (over 280 man-years) in employee processing and handling time, equating to a one-year salary cost avoidance of nearly $33 million. In addition, during FY2012, e-Adjudication saved the DoD approximately 57,000 hours (over 28 man years) in employee adjudication time, equating to a one-year salary cost avoidance of nearly $3.2 million. Shortly after the report was issued, OPM provided GAO with a letter dated May 25, 2012, that included its plans to address the recommendations that GAO made in GAO-12-197, to improve the transparency of the costs and efficiency of the suitability and security clearance background investigation process. Although this recommendation was geared toward the Deputy Director for Management at OMB, OPM pledged to support OMB in the implementation of this recommendation by 1) providing cost analysis data to support cost efficient Executive Branch implementation of new Federal Investigative Standards, 2) supporting standardization and consolidation of investigative systems and processes to the extent it benefits the goals of cost efficiency and reciprocity, and 3) providing recommendations for the standardization of technology supporting suitability adjudicative processes to the extent this benefits the goals of cost efficiency and reciprocity. OPM noted that, in March 2012, it provided OMB reform leadership with both cost analysis data to support the implementation of the new Federal Investigative Standards and recommendations for the standardization of technology for the consideration of OMB's e-Government experts.