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: "Defense economic analysis"

    21 publications with a total of 52 open recommendations including 13 priority recommendations
    Director: Andrew Von Ah
    Phone: (213) 830-1011

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The DOD's Deputy Chief Management Officer should strengthen its approach to track DOD Executive Agents to ensure that its list and contact information are current and complete.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The DOD's Deputy Chief Management Officer should verify that the OSD Principal Staff Assistants for all DOD Executive Agents have completed their required assessments every 3 years.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: The DOD's Deputy Chief Management Officer should issue implementing guidance that OSD Principal Staff Assistants should document the assessments of DOD Executive Agents, including documenting how the assessments address the DOD Executive Agents' continued need, currency, and effectiveness and efficiency in meeting end-user needs.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Andrew Von Ah
    Phone: (213) 830-1011

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

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

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

    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: To help ensure that each service can provide information to decision makers as they assess the value of the military bands relative to resource demands for other priorities, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps should direct the Chief of Army Music, Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy Band, Chief of the Air Force Bands Division, and Director of Marine Corps Communications, respectively, each to develop and implement measurable objectives and performance measures for their respective services' bands. At a minimum, these measures should include the important attributes for successful performance measures of demonstrating linkage to the program's mission, establishing a baseline, and having measurable targets to demonstrate program performance.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: John H. Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: As the department seeks to report on and achieve required cost savings, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer to develop reliable cost savings estimates that include detailed information and documentation to allow for clear tracking of cost savings by DOD and Congress.

    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: Andrew J Von Ah
    Phone: (213) 830-1011

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication and more efficiently use DOD's U.S. distribution centers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (or the subsequent Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment), in conjunction with the Director of DLA, and the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, to assess and direct the implementation of actions, as appropriate, that can be taken using existing authorities to close, realign, or dispose of existing infrastructure.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: We are awaiting confirmation from the agency on what actions have been taken in response to this recommendation. Once received, we will provide the updated information.
    Director: John H. Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    2 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to align DOD's data on department-wide military and civilian positions that have headquarters-related DOD function codes with the revised definition of major DOD headquarters activities in order to provide the department with reliable data to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining or further analysis.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of July 2017, DOD has made progress on this recommendation by (1) aligning guidance on the Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities (IGCA) Inventory to redefined Management Headquarters Activities , (2) requiring service components to revalidate DOD function codes assigned to billets when providing data to support the IGCA inventory , and (3) sponsoring two research efforts to address data quality issues, including, a review of data element and coding relationships among manpower, financial, programming systems among others, and a separate assessment of the accuracy and relevancy of existing IGCA function codes. These assessments are expected to be completed by fiscal year 2019 . The Department also provided documentation to show it had aligned total obligation authority in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. When the department takes action in response to its assessment of IGCA inventory data and documents alignment of major headquarters activities with civilian and military manpower information, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining.
    Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to, once this definition is published in DOD guidance, collect reliable information on the costs associated with functions within headquarters organizations--through revisions to the Inherently Governmental / Commercial Activities Inventory or another method--in order to provide the department with detailed information for use in estimating resources associated with specific headquarters functions, and in making decisions, monitoring performance, and allocating resources.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, DOD had made progress on this recommendation by documenting it had aligned total obligation authority in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. Further, it is assessing data elements and coding relationships among manpower, financial, programming systems among others, and a separate assessment of the accuracy and relevancy of existing IGCA function codes. These assessments are expected to be completed by fiscal year 2019. It has not, however, finalized the definition of major headquarters activities in its guidance. When the department formalizes the definition in guidance and takes action in response to its assessment of IGCA inventory data it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and estimate related resources.
    Director: Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.,
    Phone: (202) 512-7331

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve management of and reporting on the Global Train and Equip program, the Secretary of Defense should take steps to ensure that documentation requested in project proposal packages is complete.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-16-368, published in May 2016. As of June 2017, DOD had not provided us evidence that they have taken steps to ensure project proposal packages include all requested documentation. GAO will continue to monitor relevant DOD efforts in conducting related work.
    Recommendation: To improve management of and reporting on the Global Train and Equip program, the Secretary of Defense should take steps to develop a process for improving the timely completion and submission of required assessment reports to Congress.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: At the time of our April 2016 report, DOD was required to complete annual assessment reports on the section 10 U.S.C. Section 2282 Global Train and Equip program. However, the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) repealed the authorization for the Global Train and Equip program, including the annual reporting requirement, effective 270 days after the NDAA's enactment on December 23, 2016, or (September 19, 2017). In February 2017, DOD submitted its assessments for fiscal year 2016.
    Director: John H. Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To identify and mitigate risk associated with the Army's planned force structure and improve future decision making, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to expand the Army's Total Army Analysis process to routinely require a mission risk assessment for the Army's combat and enabler force structure and an assessment of mitigation strategies for identified risk prior to finalizing future force structure decisions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Army is in the process of reissuing its force development regulation (Army Regulation 71-32) and issuing a new Army Pamphlet. Collectively, officials said that these documents will codify the Army's approach to assessing mission risk and mitigation strategies for its force structure and require that these assessments be completed prior to finalizing future force structure decisions. Army officials said that these documents will be published in September 2017.
    Director: Timothy J. DiNapoli
    Phone: (202) 512-4841

    4 open recommendations
    including 3 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: Given that the intent of section 235 of Title 10 United States Code was to provide both DOD and Congress with increased oversight of the procurement of services, Congress should consider revising the section to require that DOD report on its projected spending beyond the budget year and consistent with the time period covered by the future year defense program.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: Congress has not revised section 235 of Title 10 United States Code. GAO will continue to monitor this matter for Congressional consideration.
    Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, DOD staff from the programming and budgeting communities have initiated discussions on how to improve consideration of services beyond the budget year. The Air Force, however, has not identified any specific steps to modify their programming guidance.
    Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, DOD staff from the programming and budgeting communities have initiated discussions on how to improve consideration of services beyond the budget year. The Air Force, however, has not identified any specific steps to modify their programming guidance.
    Recommendation: To ensure the military departments' efforts to integrate services into the programming process and senior service managers efforts to develop forecasts on service contract spending provide the department with consistent data, the Secretary of Defense should establish a mechanism, such as a working group of key stakeholders--which could include officials from the programming, budgeting and requirements communities as well as the senior services managers--to coordinate these efforts.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, DOD has not taken specific action(s) to address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation.
    Director: Brenda S. Farrell
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that Congress has the necessary information to provide effective oversight over DOD's workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to address ongoing requirements in section 955 and include this information in status reports that accompany the President's budget request for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. The information to be included in future status reports includes (1) a comprehensive description of a plan to achieve savings for the civilian workforce and contractor workforce for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017; (2) a description demonstrating that the plan is consistent with policies and procedures implementing workforce-management laws and steps the department is taking to ensure that no unjustified transfers between workforces take place as part of the implementing plan; (3) status reports to be included in the President's budget request for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 describing the implementation of the plan in the prior year; (4) the cost of covered civilian personnel and military basic pay for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, and an assessment of these costs in regard to their compliance with the statutory requirements set forth in section 955; and (5) an explanation for any shortfall in its reductions for the civilian and contractor workforces, and a description of actions DOD is taking to achieve the required savings.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: Update September 2016: In DOD's most recent status report issued in February 2016, DOD did not fully address our recommendations.
    Director: Zina Merritt
    Phone: (202) 512-5257

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the Air Force is properly retaining items and accurately reporting its amount of retention stock and excess inventory in accordance with DOD guidance, and not spending resources to store unneeded inventory, the Secretary of the Air Force should direct the Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, to begin performing contingency retention reviews for those items, valued at about $2.6 billion, that it already knows should not be retained as economic retention stock so that it can identify and promptly dispose of inventory that is not needed.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of August 2017, the Air Force has not completed the review of all of the necessary items to address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Air Force's actions to fully address this implementation.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the Navy has adequate oversight of on-order excess inventory termination decisions and necessary performance measures consistent with DOD guidance, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, to incorporate the graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reasons for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module that is under development.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of September 2017, Naval Supply Systems Command plans to incorporate graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reason for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module that is under development and being implemented. However, fiscal year 2019 is the best estimate for full implementation of such capabilities into the automated termination module, according to Naval Supply Systems Command officials.
    Director: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve the implementation of GCSS-Army, the Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Under Secretary of the Army, in his capacity as the Chief Management Officer, directs the GCSS-Army Program Management Office to develop an updated schedule that fully incorporates best practices, including (1) assigning resources to all activities, (2) establishing durations of all activities, (3) confirming that the critical path is valid, and (4) ensuring reasonable total float.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: We are in the process of obtaining an updated integrated master schedule from DOD to determine if Army fully incorporated best practices. As of June 2017,Army officials told us that the integrated master schedule and revised cost estimate will not be available until December 2017. This recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To help improve the implementation of GCSS-Army, the Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Under Secretary of the Army, in his capacity as the Chief Management Officer, directs the GCSS-Army Program Management Office to update the cost estimate to fully incorporate best practices by documenting the results of (1) a risk and uncertainty analysis, (2) the cross-checking of major cost elements to see if results are similar, and (3) a sensitivity analysis.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
    Status: Open

    Comments: We are in the process of obtaining an updated cost estimate from DOD to determine if Army fully incorporated best practices. As of June 2017, Army officials told us that the integrated master schedule and revised cost estimate will not be available until December 2017. This recommendation remains open.
    Director: Michelle Sager
    Phone: (202) 512-6806

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve transparency in the rulemaking process, provide agencies and the public with information on why regulations are considered to be significant regulatory actions, and promote consistency in the designation of rules as significant regulatory actions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should work with agencies to clearly communicate the reasons for designating a regulation as a significant regulatory action. Specifically, OMB should encourage agencies to clearly state in the preamble of final significant regulations the section of Executive Order 12866's definition of a significant regulatory action that applies to the regulation.

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

    Comments: In a May 14, 2015 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Director of OMB stated that nothing in the Executive Order 12866 prevents agencies from identifying the particular relevant definition of significance in rules, and that some rules do contain this information. However, OMB believes it is appropriate to leave agencies flexibility in how they comply with Executive Order 12866, since such specific procedures for including such information is not a requirement of the Executive Order itself. As of February 2017, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not taken action. We will continue to monitor this to see whether action is taken.
    Director: Cary Russell
    Phone: (202) 512-5431

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's process for setting its standard fuel price, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), to document its assumptions, including providing detailed rationale for how it estimates each of these components.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation but has not yet completed actions to fully address the recommendation. Consistent with our recommendation, DOD reevaluated its methodology for establishing the fiscal year 2017 standard price and documented parts of the methodology it used. Specifically, DOD detailed the various options it considered, the reasons why it chose the methodology it used, and the calculations it used to arrive at its estimated standard price in an internal Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) memorandum. However, DOD has not documented a process for establishing the standard price in three areas. First, DOD has not documented a formalized process that describes the steps it will take on an annual basis to determine the standard price for future fiscal years. Second, documentation detailing the options DOD considered and the rationale behind the methodology it chose is not available to Congress and its fuel customers. Third, DOD has not document the formal review and approval of the new methodology by senior Comptroller officials. The DOD Comptroller official who is responsible for managing the bulk fuel program stated that the department does not have a similar formal process for determining rates for other commodities and working capital funds. Therefore, the official stated that DOD does not want to make the bulk fuel standard price determination unique and apart from these other commodities. Because of concerns with the quality and transparency of information available to Congressional decision makers and department fuel customers concerning the methodology selected each year and its application to relevant data used in estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year, the Senate Armed Services Committee directed DOD to submit detailed guidance to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2017 that, among other aspects, requires documentation of the rationale for using one methodology over another for estimating the next fiscal year's fuel rate price, to include the limitations and assumptions of underlying data and establishing a timeline for developing annual estimated fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year. Documenting DOD's assumptions would provide greater transparency and clarify for fuel customers and decision makers regarding the process DOD uses to set the standard price.
    Director: John Pendleton
    Phone: (202) 512-3489

    3 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction efforts, the Secretary of Defense should reevaluate the decision to focus reductions on management headquarters to ensure the department's efforts ultimately result in meaningful savings.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation, stating that this department-wide recommendation would garner greater savings but did not provide plans on how it planned to implement the recommendation. As of March 2017, DOD was more broadly defining management headquarters and applying headquarters reductions to a wider range of organizations, but the department has not fully taken steps to re-evaluate the decision to focus reductions on management headquarters, as GAO recommended in June 2014. In an August 2015 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense noted that a comprehensive definition of major headquarters activities had been established, and he directed DOD to update the department's guiding instruction on management headquarters and databases in an effort to more broadly account for headquarters resources. The memorandum also directed a 25 percent reduction across all appropriations funding from fiscal years 2017 through 2020 for these headquarters activities in lieu of the 20 percent requirement previously established by the department. As of September 2016, a DOD official stated the department had not completed efforts to rebaseline all of its components according to the comprehensive definition of major headquarters activities, which is needed to determine what elements of the components are considered headquarters so the department can apply relevant reductions to its budget submission. In addition, Section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 requires that the Secretary of Defense implement a plan to ensure the department achieves not less than $10 billion in cost savings from the headquarters, administrative, and support activities of the department by fiscal year 2019. The legislation also directed the Secretary of Defense to modify DOD's headquarters reduction plans to ensure that it achieves savings in total funding for major headquarters activities of not less than 25 percent of the baseline amount in fiscal year 2016 by fiscal year 2020. In a March 2016 letter to the Armed Services Committee, DOD stated that it is focusing on broad efficiency initiatives beyond reductions in management headquarters. While DOD has taken some steps to achieve greater savings by applying additional headquarters reductions to more organizations, an official stated DOD will not document these actions until it submits its budget request for fiscal year 2018 in the spring of 2017. Until DOD documents the reductions based on its broader efficiency initiatives, GAO cannot determine if DOD has fully implemented this action. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction efforts, the Secretary of Defense should set a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for the reductions.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation to set clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for the reductions. As of March 2017, DOD had taken some steps to set a clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for headquarters reductions, but its efforts are not yet complete. In its response to GAO's recommendation, DOD recommended the use of the Future Years Defense Program data to set the baseline going forward. It stated that it was enhancing the data elements within DOD's Resource Data Warehouse to better identify management headquarters resources to facilitate tracking and reporting across the department. A December 2014 Resource Management Decision directed DOD components to identify and correct inconsistencies in major headquarters activities in authoritative DOD systems, and reflect those changes in the fiscal year 2017 program objective memorandums or submit them into the manpower management system. As of November 2016, a DOD official stated that the department had taken steps to use this definition as a baseline for headquarters reductions. However, according to this official, the department will not identify the baseline until it submits its budget request for fiscal year 2018 in the spring of 2017. Until DOD completes its efforts, savings to management headquarters will likely be difficult to track, and the department may not be assured that the reductions are achieved as intended. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Recommendation: In order to improve the management of DOD's headquarters-reduction efforts, the Secretary of Defense should track reductions against the baselines in order to provide reliable accounting of savings and reporting to Congress.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation to set clearly defined and consistently applied starting point as a baseline for the reductions. As of March 2017, DOD had taken steps to track its headquarters reductions efforts, but it continues to rely on self-reported baselines to account for headquarters savings and report to Congress. In its response to GAO's June 2014 report, DOD noted that by using the Future Years Defense Program data to set the baseline, it would be able to track and report changes to Congress. DOD further stated that it was enhancing data elements within DOD's Resource Data Warehouse to better identify management headquarters resources across the department. GAO agreed that these enhancements to data elements would increase DOD's capability to track and report management headquarters across the department, and thus, the Future Years Defense Program could be used to set baselines and track future reductions. In a December 2014 Resource Management Decision, DOD components were directed to identify and correct inconsistencies in major headquarters activities in authoritative DOD systems, to include the Future Years Defense Program and related databases, and reflect those changes when programming their fiscal year 2017-2021 resource allocations. In an August 2015 memorandum, the Deputy Secretary of Defense noted that a comprehensive definition of major headquarters activities had been established. As of November 2016, a DOD official stated that the department had taken steps to use this definition as a baseline for headquarters reductions. However, according to this official, the department will not identify the baseline until it submits its budget request for fiscal year 2018 in the spring of 2017. Until DOD completes its efforts, savings to management headquarters will likely be difficult to track, and the department may not be assured that the reductions are achieved as intended. We will continue to monitor actions DOD takes in response to this recommendation and will provide updated information as appropriate.
    Director: Asif A. Khan
    Phone: (202) 512-9869

    8 open recommendations
    including 8 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Discovery Phase planning activities for contract pay by documenting its contract pay end-to-end process by developing the necessary flowcharts and narratives for those processes excluded from the FIP.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Discovery Phase planning activities for contract pay by assessing the materiality (i.e., dollar activity and risk factors) of its processes, systems, and controls.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Discovery Phase planning activities for contract pay by completing a memorandum of understanding with each of the components.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Discovery Phase testing activities by validating the completeness and accuracy of the populations of transactions used to perform testing.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Discovery Phase testing activities by documenting and executing an audit strategy or plan for application-level testing of system controls.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Discovery Phase testing activities by coordinating with the components to classify all identified deficiencies as control deficiencies, significant deficiencies, and material weaknesses.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Corrective Action Phase activities by assessing the population of implemented corrective action plans to determine whether the deficiencies we found in our nongeneralizable sample of DFAS's corrective action plans are more wide spread in the population.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Recommendation: To ensure that DFAS is able to obtain the necessary assurance that its contract pay end-to-end process can produce, maintain, and sustain accurate, complete, and timely information in support of the components' and DOD-wide financial improvement and audit readiness efforts, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer should direct the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to address deficiencies in its Corrective Action Phase activities by revising its FIAR status reports to accurately reflect the current status of its audit readiness efforts.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: This recommendation remains open. On July 14, 2016, and August 10, 2016, we met with DFAS and Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) officials to discuss the status of the recommendations for this report, clarify the documentation DFAS provided so far and additional documentation needed to address this recommendation. In addition, we spoke with DFAS officials on September 20, 2016, to clarify additional questions they had on our documentation needs. As of October 2016, DFAS officials told us that they were still working on improvements to their process documentation and controls in the contract pay area. DFAS recently provided documentation to support its actions related to this recommendation and we will continue to review relevant documentation and monitor the actions taken by DFAS.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202) 512-3604

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to further develop guidance for cost elements that users have identified as challenging to calculate, such as general and administrative, overhead, advertising and recruiting, and training.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office is updating fiscal year 2017 estimates in its Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) system to reflect separate officer and enlisted training costs. If more specific cost estimates are required, users of FCoM are directed to cost estimating tools operated by the military departments.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to develop business rules for estimating the full cost of National Guard and Reserve personnel.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report in Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, a cost estimating function for Reserve Component personnel far exceeds the combination of variables for developing active component and DOD civilian cost estimates. Due to the scope of the Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) contract, OSD(CAPE) has not adopted this recommendation in terms of a web-based application. However, OSD(CAPE) intends to address general business rules for Reserve Component cost estimates in the next DoDI revision.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, in coordination with the department's Office of the Actuary and appropriate federal actuarial offices, to reevaluate the inclusion and quantification of pension, retiree health care costs, and other relevant costs of an actuarial nature and make revisions as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, OSD(CAPE) has reviewed the inclusion of payments that the government makes to retirement and health benefits. All identified costs that are attributable to current retirees and past service of active civilian and military personnel, such as unfunded liabilities, are being revised in the cost estimating guidelines. OSD(CAPE) intends to incorporate these changes in the next DoDI revision and coordinate a review with the Office of the DoD Actuaty.
    Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's ability to estimate contractor support costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, consistent with established practices for developing credible cost estimates, to research the data sources it is currently using and reassess its contractor support data sources for use when determining contractor support costs.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilian and Contractors, the department's efforts to improve data sources are ongoing.
    Director: Mctigue Jr, James R
    Phone: (202) 512-7968

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the ability of the Army and local communities to manage future base closures, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to issue, consistent with DOD guidance, guidance on specific levels of maintenance to be followed in the event of a base closure based on the probable reuse of the facilities.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In DOD's comments on our report, it stated that it concurred with our recommendation and that the Army agrees to publish property maintenance guidance prior to closing installations in the event of future base closures. In June 2016, DOD stated that the Department is prohibited by Congressional/statutory language to plan for or implement future BRAC execution.
    Recommendation: To improve the ability of DOD and the local communities to respond to future growth actions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to consider developing a procedure for collecting service members' physical addresses while stationed at an installation, annually updating this information, and sharing aggregate information with community representatives relevant for local planning decisions, such as additional population per zip code, consistent with privacy and force protection concerns.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it agrees that information pertaining to the physical location of installation personnel helps affected communities plan for housing, schools, transportation and other off-post requirements in support of installations. It further stated that existing policy requires the military departments to provide planning information, including base personnel, to states and communities to support the establishment or expansion of a military base. In the event of future basing decisions affecting local communities, DOD stated that it will work with the military departments to assess and determine the best means to obtain, aggregate, and distribute this information to help ensure adequate planning information is made available. In June 2016, DOD stated that the Department is prohibited by Congressional/statutory language to plan for or implement future BRAC execution.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to consider creating or designating a civilian position at the installation level to be the focal point and provide continuity for community interaction for future growth installations and to consider expanding this position to all installations. This position may be a collateral duty.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD partially agreed with this recommendation. It stated that it agrees with the need for a designated position at the installation level to work with the community and will ensure this requirement is being met through current practices and in accordance with each military department's personnel system. In many of the growth impacted communities, installation officials serve as ex-officio members of the community's growth management organization and relevant installation staff, including those engaged with public works, housing, education, and land use planning, and coordinate as needed with their civilian community counterparts. In July 2015, DOD stated that in the event the Department of Defense proceeds with future realignments that could result in a reduced footprint, there are provisions for Base Transition Coordinators (BTCs) to be designated as a liaison with the affected community. In the event these future realignments result in an expanded footprint or personnel growth, the Department would consider this recommendation at that time. In June 2016, DOD stated that the Department is prohibited by Congressional/statutory language to plan for or implement future BRAC execution.
    Director: Farrell, Brenda S
    Phone: (202)512-3604

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that Congress has the necessary information to provide effective oversight over all of DOD's civilian senior leader workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to conduct assessments of the skills, competencies, and gaps within all five career civilian senior leader workforces and report them in DOD's future strategic workforce plans.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In August 2014, officials with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) Human Capital Management Office stated that development of criteria for assessing the skills, competencies, and gaps of the department's Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforces had been completed. According to the officials, the criteria will be included in the department's senior leader management policies and fully implemented once the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) completes development, revision, and publication of other DOD related civilian senior leader management policies that the revised Defense Intelligence civilian senior leader policy references. Update 9/2016: Officials from the Strategic Human Capital Planning Division indicated that a future strategic plan will address GAO's recommendation. Officials indicated that the plan is expected to be released in Fall 2016.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202)512-9869

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To improve the development, implementation, documentation, and oversight of the department's financial management improvement efforts, and to ensure that the Air Force develops and implements its Financial Improvement Plan in accordance with the FIAR Guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that the Air Force's Financial Improvement Plans include documentation that the Air Force performed a reconciliation of the complete population of transactions for an assessable unit to the relevant general ledger(s) and to the amount(s) reported in the financial statements, including researching and resolving reconciling items.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In November 2015, an independent public accountant (IPA) issued a disclaimer of opinion in connection with its audit of Air Force's fiscal year 2015 General Fund Schedule of Budgetary Activity (SBA) because Air Force was unable to provide sufficient audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. In addition, the IPA specifically identified Air force's inability to validate the completeness of transactions underlying the SBA as one of three material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting. We followed up with DOD officials in August 2017 and have not been able to obtain documentation indicating that actions were taken to address this recommendation. As a result, this recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To improve the development, implementation, documentation, and oversight of the department's financial management improvement efforts, and to improve DOD's monitoring and oversight of FIP activities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that all responsible parties within the Navy, including the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller), carry out their responsibilities for ensuring that FIP development and implementation complies with the FIAR Guidance and that the FIP contains sufficient information to indicate audit readiness before it is signed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In February 2016, an independent public accountant (IPA) issued a disclaimer of opinion in connection with its audit of Navy's fiscal year 2015 General Fund Schedule of Budgetary Activity because Navy was unable to provide sufficient audit evidence regarding its completeness and accuracy. In addition, the IPA identified three material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of its financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Ensuring the completeness and accuracy of financial reports are key elements of the FIAR Guidance. We followed up with DOD officials in August 2017 and have not been able to obtain documentation indicating that actions were taken to address this recommendation. As a result, this recommendation remains open.
    Recommendation: To improve the development, implementation, documentation, and oversight of the department's financial management improvement efforts, and to improve DOD's monitoring and oversight of FIP activities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that all responsible parties within the Air Force, including the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller) carry out their responsibilities for ensuring that FIP development and implementation complies with the FIAR Guidance and that the FIP contains sufficient information to indicate audit readiness before it is signed.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In November 2016, an independent public accountant (IPA) issued a disclaimer of opinion in connection with its audit of Air Force's fiscal year 2015 General Fund Schedule of Budgetary Activity (SBA) because Air Force was unable to provide sufficient audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. In addition, the IPA identified three material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of its financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Ensuring the completeness and accuracy of financial reports are key elements of the DOD FIAR Guidance. We followed up with DOD officials in August 2017 and have not been able to obtain documentation of actions taken to address this recommendation. As a result, this recommendation remains open.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the military department Chief Management Officers, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as appropriate, after defining the cost accounting requirements, to utilize the requirements as input to the ERPs to help ensure that the ERPs will provide the capability to identify and aggregate cost information for the department's assets in accordance with DOD's defined requirements.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD's military departments are in the process of implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERPs). At least one of these ERPs does not currently include cost accumulation and reporting for military equipment assets. DOD's FIAR plan efforts, which, according to officials, include systems enhancements are still on-going to address this recommendation. The status of this recommendation is open.
    Director: Khan, Asif A
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    4 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to revise the Army procedures to include specific steps required to retain documentation of the activities performed and related results.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. However, it is not clear whether this action will provide sufficient Army-specific procedural requirements. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to revise the Marine Corps and Air Force procedures to include specific steps required to validate data in the OCO report including reconciliations and retain documentation of the activities performed and related results.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. However, it is not clear whether this action will provide sufficient Marine Corps and Air Force-specific procedural requirements. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to establish Navy procedures to include specific steps required to validate data in the OCO report including variance analysis and reconciliations, and retain documentation of the activities performed and related results.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. However, it is not clear whether this action will provide sufficient Navy-specific procedural requirements. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military service secretaries (as appropriate), to revise DOD requirements in FMR 7000.14-R, Volume 12, Chapter 23, Contingency Operations, to provide clear, detailed guidance on (1) conducting reconciliations and other validations and (2) documenting military service-level reviews and DOD Comptroller-level reviews.

    Agency: Department of Defense
    Status: Open

    Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and cited actions in process to revise its Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In 2016, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) stated that the Components provided comments and edits to the draft Chapter 23. The comments were more detailed than projected and require extensive research to verify. As of August 2017, we have not been able to obtain supporting documentation to assess whether the recommendation was implemented.