Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. 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. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
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.
Results:
Subject Term: "Actual costs"
GAO-20-169, Jan 2, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy to document its process for estimating total life cycle activation costs for major medical facility projects. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy that will include guidance on comparison of actual activation costs to project estimates and that will document the parties responsibility for comparing these costs. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy that will define and document what items and services officials can purchase with activation funds. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy that will define and document when facilities should cease to spend activation funds. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.
GAO-20-130, Dec 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and has developed an action plan to implement it. In January 2020, GSA officials told us that GSA will change the method for calculating the average cost per square foot performance measure by now using the actual rent agencies paid to GSA in the calculation. GSA officials also stated that GSA will post this information annually to performance.gov. We will continue to monitor GSA's implementation of these efforts.
GAO-20-85, Nov 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-65, Nov 1, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) provides detailed cost and rate information to customers each year in multiple venues and would reach out to customers to obtain additional details to understand how to fill the information gap regarding rate transparency. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DFAS's corrective action plan, which stated that DFAS Client Executives would ask the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps lead Financial Managers for feedback on additional details needed to better plan for the DFAS bill. DFAS would then incorporate this additional detail into the customer bill briefings for the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2022. DFAS also stated that the Air Force had indicated that DFAS provides appropriate transparency, but had requested that DFAS provide its bill estimate earlier, which DFAS had agreed to do.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Information Systems Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) will make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure the correct people have a full understanding of DISA's methodologies used to develop their rates. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DISA's corrective action plan, which stated that DISA would continue to make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure an increased understanding of methodologies used to develop the rates. In this plan, DISA reported that, in February and March 2020, its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) coordinated with the communications and financial management senior leadership for the military services to discuss Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) rate methodology and transparency. In May 2020, DOD provided an updated status on this recommendation, stating that a result of the DISA CFO outreach was that DISA would use the regular and recurring DISA Drumbeat engagements with the military departments to present and maintain an open and transparent dialogue on DISA DWCF rates. GAO requested documentation for the recent Navy and Air Force Drumbeat meetings and the pending Army meeting, as well as recent rate briefings that document that DISA is providing this more complete rate-setting information to its customers. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) would include more detailed information in its annual rate briefing to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the services regarding what is in its costs, how it calculates costs, and how and when changes would impact customers' overall costs. In addition, DLA stated that it conducts semiannual Cost Summits and periodic DLA/Service Days with customers. DLA said it would include discussions, as appropriate, of topics such as potential pricing methodology changes and estimated cost impacts to customers, well in advance of implementation. In March 2020, DLA notified GAO that it had discussed cost rates with the military services during the January 2020 DLA Cost Summit and the Service Days with each of the military services that it held in June and November 2019. GAO requested documentation for these five meetings that includes the more complete information on DLA's rate-setting methodologies that GAO identified in the recommendation. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.
GAO-19-678, Sep 24, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6881
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to establish a percentage threshold for monitoring daily account balance changes. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to create internal guidance for calculating upper and lower bounds and to monitor the accounts against them. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to update internal guidance with specific criteria for measuring the health of the accounts and to perform rigorous analysis of historical account data as part of its annual review process. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to update internal guidance with specific criteria and analysis steps to follow when making determinations about redistributing funds between the FMS trust fund fee accounts. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and explained certain steps DSCA has already taken in response. In particular, DSCA has completed an assessment of the health of the main FMS transportation account sufficient to determine that it plans to move the redistributed funds back to the FMS administrative account and DSCA has taken initial steps to move those funds. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to develop guidance for DFAS to follow when Building Partner Capacity-specific transportation accounts close to ensure any remaining funds are transferred to the miscellaneous receipts of the U.S. Treasury. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and stated that DSCA has discussed with other relevant DOD agencies in a Transportation Working Group how to best address it. In particular, DSCA noted this Working Group has decided that all data for the rate reviews should come from common data systems and be submitted in a uniform manner. Upon determination of the systems to use and processes to follow, DSCA plans to update internal guidance accordingly. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to update internal guidance for FMS transportation fee rate reviews to ensure they are completed every 5 years. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this aspect of the recommendation, as well as the other aspects related to DSCA providing greater specificity about the processes for obtaining management commitment and for performing the rate reviews.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to perform rigorous analysis and to consult with other relevant DOD agencies in the Transportation Working Group about whether the current structure of the FMS transportation fee rate is still valid or should be updated, and to update internal guidance as appropriate. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to consult with other relevant DOD agencies in the Transportation Working Group to review this calculation methodology, determine a revised methodology that better aligns with TRANSCOM's transportation routes and contracting costs, and to update internal guidance as appropriate. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-19-494, Sep 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In an update provided in April 2020, DOE said that it had taken steps to ensure the cost estimates will meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs) as part of contract negotiations for the cleanup project. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that in negotiating the Idaho Cleanup Project contract it had taken steps to ensure the schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations will meet best practices for being well constructed. Further, DOE stated that the remaining baseline scope and schedule estimate received an external review by its contractor's parent corporation and DOE's Office of Environmental Management to ensure that the schedule meets best practices for being well-constructed. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that cost and performance data for the IWTU is being tracked against the cost and schedule baselines incorporated in the core contract for the Idaho Cleanup Project, and that the data meets best practices for reliability. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that EM will assess the range of potential strategies and pathways for disposal of the treated SBW. Once this effort is completed, GAO will review EM's strategy and timeline for achieving its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, and update the status of this recommendation accordingly.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that DOE's Idaho Operations Office is in the process of chartering a team of subject matter experts to update an analysis of alternatives for calcine treatment and disposal. DOE said that this evaluation will be completed by September 30, 2020. GAO will request additional information from DOE on this analysis once completed and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.
GAO-18-250, May 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM concurred with this recommendation and, in July 2019, the agency developed a new funding code to track the costs incurred when reclaiming orphaned wells and issued written guidance to state and field offices in order to implement the bureau-wide use of the code. Also in July 2019, BLM officials stated that the agency will expand existing reporting capabilities to provide the ability to track orphaned and inactive well records over time. As of September 2020, we are working to confirm what actions BLM has taken to track the number of orphaned and inactive wells over time, and we will provide updated information when we obtain it.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM officials stated that the agency conducts annual work planning processes which facilitates the decisions regarding the allocation of agency resources. In July 2019, BLM included additional language in its annual work plan that underscores the importance and relevance of well and bond adequacy reviews. The agency also developed a new fund code to track the actual reclamation costs incurred from reclaiming orphaned wells. The annual work plan also lists identifying and cataloging orphaned wells as a performance goal and the plan states that BLM is working with state regulatory agencies to plug wells within funding levels and state agreements. However, as of September 2020, absent identification of funds needed to reclaim orphaned wells and where those funds will come from, BLM does not have a plan to reclaim wells that are currently orphaned.
GAO-18-344, Apr 25, 2018
Phone: (202) 515-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS agreed with this recommendation and has indicated the OCFO budget division will develop a display that provides major acquisition program level data at the program project activity level by March 30, 2019. As of March 2020, DHS has developed these displays and is working to populate them with all components' data.
GAO-18-101, Mar 27, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve its cost estimating guidance by fully incorporating all 12 steps needed for developing high-quality, reliable estimates. DOD stated that it did not believe that it is suitable to fully apply all 12 steps to any construction project due to characteristics of the military construction program that DOD believes differ from those of major system or weapon acquisition programs. However, DOD also stated that it concurred with the intent and general applicability of the twelve steps to military construction and that DOD cost estimating guidance lacks specificity in several of these areas. DOD acknowledged that expanding its cost guidance to more fully incorporate these steps would benefit the military construction program, and told us that it is planning to address this by revising its cost guidance. In our report, we recognize that it may not be appropriate to fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project. For example, it may not be realistic or to the military departments' benefit to conduct a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost projects. Accordingly, we did not recommend that DOD fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project, but rather that it fully incorporate the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria so that, at least, each step is considered for each project. DOD could then choose to establish thresholds-based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects-to determine for which the 12 steps should be fully applied or other circumstances in which some steps might not be applicable. We believe DOD's planned revisions once completed will meet the general intent of our recommendation.
GAO-18-75, Oct 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-5431
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics contract. A DOD official said that this group is also working to identify appropriate metrics to hold the contractor accountable under a potential long-term performance-based contract. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to re-examine metrics to ensure that they are objectively measureable, fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics (PBL) contract. As a product of this assessment, DOD expects that the department will be able to outline what level of knowledge is required of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft in order to enter into a PBL sustainment construct. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.
Phone: (202) 512-4841
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 and has taken steps to address it. For example, in April 2018, the department developed a template for the military departments to use to identify specific types of information to collect. Since then, each of the military departments has initiated or planned to initiate efforts to collect and analyze information about outcomes of incentive contracts. In addition, in July 2020 DOD provided examples of selected DOD, Army, and Navy incentive contracts documented in the template previously noted. The department did not provide additional information about the Air Force's efforts, or about how DOD is analyzing the information to determine whether incentives can achieve desired outcomes. GAO has ongoing work to review DOD's use of fixed-price type contracts--including fixed-price incentive contracts--for major DOD systems, which may provide additional insights related to this recommendation.
GAO-16-667, Sep 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, Congress has not yet considered if it plans to amend FOIA regarding the reporting of costs for defending lawsuits in which the plaintiffs prevailed.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, Congress has not yet considered if it plans to amend FOIA to require Justice to make changes to its Litigation and Compliance reports.
GAO-16-628, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. Specifically, we reported that the Bureau should ensure that its budget for contingencies for the 2020 Census reflect an accurate accounting of risk and uncertainty. In doing this, the Bureau should improve controls over risk and uncertainty in the cost estimate process, and institutionalize these controls by providing clear methods for their use. In July 2018, we completed a review of documentation to support the updated October 2017 cost estimate and found that the Bureau performed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on the estimate and appropriately added funding into the cost estimate to reflect inherent uncertainty and to account for specific risks. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to link specific risks to funds set aside in the $1.2 billion general risk contingency fund. Therefore, as of January 2020, this recommendation remains valid and should be addressed: that the Bureau properly account for risk in the 2020 Census cost estimate.