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: "Administrative costs"
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-20-149, Oct 1, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid because requiring states to make public information about administrative costs would help to ensure that demonstration proposals provide sufficient information to ensure meaningful public input.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid because including administrative costs in its assessments will help HHS ensure that demonstrations are budget neutral.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid and that assessing these risks of providing federal funds for costs that are not allowable and improving oversight, as warranted, would help HHS to ensure the integrity of the Medicaid program.
GAO-17-510, Jun 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, NOAA reported that it had awarded a contract to assess hydrographic surveying needs and had drafted a Memorandum of Agreement to improve coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey on data acquisition and management. NOAA also reported that it planned to identify surveying tasks that could be accomplished using the private sector, and would take steps to improve the funding transfer process so that it could take advantage of Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Transportation Safety Board funds available for certain types of private sector survey activities. NOAA officials stated these tasks would be completed and a final strategy on working with the private sector issued by December 30, 2020.
GAO-17-281, Feb 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2017, HUD reported that the department concurred with the recommendation and noted that the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) intended to establish cost estimation guidance for IT projects within its IT Management Framework Guide, incorporating appropriate best practices from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. In March 2019, HUD reported that, with contractor assistance, the department had begun to develop a standard methodology for investment lifecycle cost estimation; however, the methodology had not been fully institutionalized across all investments, and a policy for cost estimation had not been developed. Lacking an updated IT Management Framework and cost estimation policy, OCIO took additional interim action in the most recent budget cycle to reduce cost estimation risk by having the Chief Technology Officer standardize the cost estimates for IT investments. HUD continues to take action intended to address this recommendation; however, OCIO has not yet finalized a cost estimation methodology or the associated policy for IT investments or established a timeframe for implementing cost estimation practices departmentwide.
GAO-17-122, Oct 12, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. Subsequently, in September 2018, DOT rescinded the ECP brake rule. As a result, DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not intend to create a plan to collect data from railroads' use of ECP brakes.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. DOT subsequently rescinded the ECP brake rule in September 2018. As a result, this recommendation is currently no longer relevant and DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not plan to implement this regulation.
GAO-16-475, May 27, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: No executive action taken as of December 2019. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disagreed with this May 2016 recommendation. IRS raised concerns about the cost of studying collections data for post-refund enforcement activities. GAO recognizes that gathering collections data has costs and the data have limitations, notably that not all recommended taxes are collected. However, use of these data -- once IRS is able to verify their reliability -- could better inform resource allocation decisions and improve the overall efficiency of enforcement efforts. By not taking necessary steps to ensure the reliability of that data and to link them to tax assessments to calculate a collections rate, IRS lacks critical information. Periodic reviews of collections data and analyses could help IRS officials more efficiently allocate limited enforcement resources by providing a more complete picture about compliance results and costs.
GAO-16-168, Mar 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
GAO-15-431, May 21, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Commerce had not implemented this recommendation. In July 2018, the department provided an inventory that shows, by service provider and department component, the number of devices per rate plan and monthly rate; however, the inventory did not include the number of voice minutes, gigabytes of data, and text messages allowed per line per month. Furthermore, the department had not demonstrated that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the department had not addressed the recommendation. In July 2018, the department described steps it was taking to identify lines that were inactive for a period of three or more continuous months (zero usage). However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has established documented procedures that address the elements of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of January 2020, the department had not implemented it. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that such an inventory has merits, but that maintaining one comes at considerable expense and effort. The department also stated, in 2016, that while it does not maintain a single, centralized device level inventory, the military departments track and manage their own devices and services . As we stated in our report, the inventory need not be generated centrally at the headquarters level; the department can compile a comprehensive inventory using its components' complete inventories. As of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that all its components had inventories of unique devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation; and has taken steps to address it. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that developing an inventory of mobile device contracts has merits, especially in a time of restricted government spending. The department also described several efforts it had undertaken to enhance mobile device management. However, as we stated in our report, any approach to managing mobile device contracts will be hampered by the lack of complete information on the contracts that are already in place. In August 2018, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department had not demonstrated that the inventory included all its components' mobile service contracts. In August 2019, the department described steps it was taking to ensure that it has a complete inventory of mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security developed an asset and inventory management plan for managing devices under its enterprise blanket purchase agreement. The plan includes procedures for assessing devices for zero usage; however, it does not include procedures for assessing over and under usage. The department also has not demonstrated that it has established procedures for devices not covered by its enterprise blanket purchase agreement.We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior has not demonstrated that it has fully implemented this recommendation. As of January 2020, the department demonstrated that only one of its components, the Bureau of Reclamation, had an inventory of mobile devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Interior had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed this recommendation. In August 2019, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Justice has made progress implementing this recommendation; however, more remains to be done. Specifically, in response to our findings, in April 2015, the department's Chief Information Officer issued a memo that required components to establish procedures for regular reviews of invoices for wireless services to identify unused and underused devices or services, as well as any over-usage charges to service plans. One of the components we reviewed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, established procedures in July 2016 to monitor mobile device usage. In addition, the Justice Management Division (JMD) established procedures in May 2019 that apply to JMD as well some but not all other components. The other component we reviewed in our report, the Drug Enforcement Agency, had not established procedures that address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not demonstrated that it has implemented this recommendation. The department has inventories of mobile device; however, the inventories do not include the services associated with each device. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not implemented this recommendation. In June 2019, the department said it has a Telecom Expense Management System which can be used to document an inventory of domestic service contracts; however, the department did not provide the inventory. Furthermore, the department did not demonstrate that it has an inventory of international service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Transportation had not addressed the recommendation. In December 2019, an official from the department's Audit Relations and Program Improvement office stated that all the department's telecommunication devices are managed through two programs and that these programs have mechanisms in place to ensure that telecommunications are managed in an effective and efficient manner. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, the department stated that it had established enterprise-wide procurement vehicles for mobile devices. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not implemented the recommendation. We reported in May 2015, that NASA had an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information which included most, but not all, of the devices used by the agency. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that the agency was in the process of enrolling devices in a new mobile device management tool, and that when the approximately 15 percent of devices that are not currently on NASA's new End-User Services Technology contract are brought on the contract, NASA will have a monthly deliverable depicting the services of all mobile devices. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that NASA had established, on September 1, 2019, the NASA End-User Services and Technology contract to procure mobile services, but as of November 2019, had not yet included 15 percent of its devices on the new contract. We will continue to monitor NASA's efforts to develop and maintain a mobile services contract inventory as described in our report.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that as part of enterprise mobility service contract deliverables, NASA requires monthly reports to monitor and optimize usage (zero, under, and over). NASA's OCIO also stated that the agency established role-based privileges to monitor and report on this activity agency-wide. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established procedures to assess device usage in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, an official from the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that the department was collecting and analyzing information on voice and data utilization. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had established procedures in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-15-331, Mar 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA believes it has met the requirements of the recommendation and considers it closed. In our March 2015 report--which examined NNSA's report on the contract to manage and operate the Pantex Plant and the Y-12 National Security Complex under a single management and operating (M&O) contract with Consolidated Nuclear Services (CNS)--we recommended that NNSA enhance the clarity and completeness of its future reports on the costs and benefits of M&O contract competitions. While NNSA demonstrated progress in implementing this recommendation in its September 2017, August 2018, and April 2019 reports to Congress on the costs and benefits of the contract competitions for the Sandia, Nevada, and Los Alamos sites respectively, NNSA did not provide clear and complete information on all required elements of these reports. Specifically, for the Sandia National Laboratories M&O contract, in our August 2018 report we found that NNSA addressed most but not all reporting requirements. For example, NNSA's report addressed all requirements pertaining to cost savings, other benefits, and disruptions or delays, but only partially addressed the reporting requirements on the limitations or uncertainties about cost savings and on the immediate costs of competition and over the life of the contract. NNSA issued a report in August 2018 on the costs and benefits of its competition of the M&O contract for the Nevada National Security Site. In our April 2019 report on NNSA's cost-benefit analysis of that contract competition, we found that, of the five required reporting elements, NNSA's report addressed one with detail but addressed the other four without detail. In April 2019 NNSA issued its cost-benefit analysis of the competition for the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract. In our January 2020 report on NNSA's cost-benefit report for that contract competition, we found that it addressed five reporting elements on costs and disruption during contract transition with detail, partially addressed two reporting elements on uncertainties and benefits, and did not address one reporting element on activities to be covered by the M&O contractor. Since our 2015 recommendation, NNSA's cost-benefit reports on M&O contract competitions have generally provided clearer and more complete information on most of the required reporting elements, but they have not provided clear and complete information on all required reporting elements. In June 2020, NNSA announced that it would end the current CNS contract for Pantex and Y-12 management and operations instead of awarding the contractor its final option term. This will result in a new contract competition and award by the end of the current contract's term on September 30, 2021. The NNSA report on the costs and benefits of that competition may give us another opportunity to assess the quality of NNSA's reports for clarity and completeness on the required reporting elements.
GAO-14-684, Jul 31, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2017, no actions have been taken.
GAO-13-760, Sep 24, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: National Institutes of Health
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 7, 2015, NIH provided some information indicating that it had taken action to address our recommendation by tracking the size of indirect costs as a proportion of NIH's overall budget as part of the agency's annual budget planning process and risk assessment program. However, we determined that the actions did not fully address the recommendation because they focus on the agency's overall budget and do not assess the potential ongoing impact of indirect costs for universities on its mission. As of September 2018, NIH officials have not informed us of any additional actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-13-534, Jun 28, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2017, the Director of NNSA Office of Policy issued guidance to NNSA Laboratory Field Office Managers to update contracts to include a new clause requiring laboratory contractors to submit a strategic plan every year in accordance with guidance. Part of the annual plan requires contractors to discuss the costs of doing business and cost-increase factors at the sites, including overhead dollars. The annual strategic plan is due to the NNSA Office of Policy by August 15 each year. The annual strategic plans included information on indirect costs and cost drivers, but did not include benchmarking. We again requested information on the benchmarking requirements, if any, in July 2020.
GAO-13-247, Mar 21, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, a HUD official told us that the agency did not have the funding necessary to make any changes to IDIS. According to this official, HUD was willing to create the recommended across-program report, but did not have the information technology funding required to make other, higher-priority changes to IDIS (such as fixing identified defects) or the change GAO recommended.
GAO-13-99, Nov 19, 2012
Phone: (202)512-6304
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress had taken a number of actions that affect the NTIS fee-based model for disseminating technical information. Specifically, for the past 5 fiscal years and in the current Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, NTIS is prohibited from charging customers for reports generated by legislative branch offices unless the agency tells the customer how an electronic copy of the report can be accessed or downloaded for free online. The act further states that, if a customer still requires such a report from NTIS, the agency should not charge more than what is needed to recover the cost of processing, reproducing, and delivering the document requested. It remains to be seen whether these requirements will be continued under the yet to be introduced House and Senate bills making appropriations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year 2021. Congress again has the opportunity to consider legislation that would ensure the assessment of the appropriateness or viability of NTIS functions.
GAO-12-838, Sep 12, 2012
Phone: (404)679-3000
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: On January 20, 2016, FEMA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit comments on an option FEMA is considering to establish a disaster deductible, which would require a predetermined level of financial or other commitment from a recipient, generally the state or territorial government, before FEMA would provide assistance under the Public Assistance Program. According to FEMA, the agency received 150 responses during the 60-day public comment period, which ended on March 21, 2016, and used this input to develop a plan for further engagement on a more detailed proposal for public comment. The Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published on January 12, 2017, provided another opportunity for stakeholder input prior to any changes to the Public Assistance program. This proposal included an explanation of how deductible amounts might be calculated, identified specific credits that states could apply for, and detailed how the deductible would be applied post-declaration. According to FEMA officials, the comments received, in part, raised concerns about the complexity of the proposed deductible model. FEMA agreed with the concerns raised that the proposal was too complicated, and in August 2018, told us that it is no longer pursuing that option. However, FEMA is considering options that leverage similar approaches but does not have an estimated completion date for implementation. On October 5, 2018, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA), was signed into law. DRRA (section 1239) directs the FEMA Administrator to initiate a rulemaking to update the factors considered when evaluating a request for a Major Disaster Declaration for Public Assistance, specifically the estimated cost of assistance (i.e. the per capita indicator). FEMA is working to implement this provision pursuant to the law, and this effort represents one of the top priorities of the agency; however, the estimated completion date is still "to be determined." Until FEMA implements a new methodology, FEMA will not have an accurate assessment of a jurisdiction's capabilities to respond to and recover from a disaster without federal assistance and runs the risk of recommending that the President award Public Assistance to jurisdictions that have the capability to respond and recover on their own.