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: "Appropriated funds"
GAO-20-377, Jun 1, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will develop an action plan to address the recommendation to better align its contingency plan with OMB guidance. When we confirm what actions Commerce has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation and and stated that it has begun to take steps to better address OMB guidance on contingency plans. When we confirm what actions DHS has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) partially agreed with the recommendation. IRS agreed with one element of our recommendation to include additional detail in its agency contingency plan and stated that it is in the process of adding procedures for resuming program activities following a government shutdown into its contingency plan. IRS did not agree with the other elements of the recommendation because it believes it has already addressed plans for a potential prolonged shutdown and flexibilities for supervisors if employees are unable to return to work at the end of a shutdown in its contingency plans. We agree that while IRS has included some details on these elements in its plans, we continue to believe that it should provide more detail, such as points in time when the furlough status of an employee may change, how many employees would be affected, and the legal basis for the changes, within its publically available contingency plan to fully address these elements. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts in this area.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has already begun addressing our recommendations on aligning its contingency plan with OMB guidance. When we confirm what actions USTR has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that the International Trade Administration (ITA) has documented its shutdown planning processes and recall processes for furloughed employees during a shutdown. When we confirm what actions ITA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has already begun addressing our recommendations on documenting its shutdown processes. When we confirm what actions USTR has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation and stated that Customs and Border Protection plans to analyze existing systems to determine which is best suited to track and document employee work during a government shutdown and will ensure that the chosen system is available should a future shutdown occur. When we confirm what actions CBP has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with the recommendation but stated that because Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not have systems capable of efficiently restoring physical access for furloughed employees, it would have to reinstate employee access individually and the cost would be substantial. DHS stated that CBP plans to update procedures to ensure more comprehensive workspace access guidance for furloughed employees. We continue to believe that physical access controls are important during shutdowns in order to prevent misuse of government resources. We encourage CBP to improve their systems to be able to efficiently implement such controls and will monitor CBP's efforts going forward.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with this recommendation. IRS stated that it believes that it has effective controls in place to manage physical workspace access during a shutdown. In addition, IRS said that it believes that implementing additional access controls do not justify the corresponding resource investments. We continue to believe that IRS should improve its access controls, which currently rely on managers and furlough letters to communicate limits on workspace access. While we recognize the costs of increased access controls, government shutdowns are unique events that require additional access controls in order to prevent potential misuse of government resources and will monitor IRS's efforts to address it.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has made the Executive Office of the President (EOP) aware of the recommendations on developing controls for physical workspace access during a shutdown. We will continue to monitor USTR's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with the recommendation. DHS stated that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) believes that furloughed employees must be able to passively monitor the status of the government shutdown and access important agency communications using DHS-issued electronic devices. Additionally, disabling and reactivating thousands of employee user accounts during a shutdown posed a significant burden. DHS said that CBP plans to update shutdown procedures to clarify allowed use of DHS-issued electronic devices by furloughed employees. We agree that CBP should update procedures on workspace access as suggested, and continue to believe that virtual access controls are important during shutdowns in order to prevent misuse of government resources. We encourage CBP to improve their systems to be able to efficiently implement such controls and will monitor CBP's progress going forward.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with this recommendation. IRS stated that it believes that it has effective controls in place to manage virtual workspace access during a shutdown. In addition, IRS said that it believes that implementing additional access controls do not justify the corresponding resource investments. We continue to believe that IRS should improve its access controls, which currently rely on managers and furlough letters to communicate limits on workspace access. While we recognize the costs of increased access controls, government shutdowns are unique events that require additional access controls in order to prevent potential misuse of government resources and will monitor IRS's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that the International Trade Administration (ITA) has established and documented internal controls to limit virtual workspace access to excepted or exempt employees during a government shutdown. When we confirm what actions ITA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has made the Executive Office of the President (EOP) aware of the recommendations on developing controls for virtual workspace access during a shutdown. We will continue to monitor USTR's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-20-361, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In June 2020, GSA said the agency would validate system data through regional and broker outreach and fully utilize validated system data to manage the broker program. The agency also said it will develop a quality control plan and follow-up on outcomes. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Although GSA initially did not concur with this recommendation, the agency stated in June 2020 that it agrees with the recommendation and will take steps to implement it. Specifically, GSA plans to revise the broker performance standards and document broker effectiveness through lease cost avoidance, timely lease replacement, and earned commission credits. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
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-19-479, Jun 28, 2019
Phone: 2025122623
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) disagreed with our recommendation. In the agency's comment section of the GAO report, OMB staff stated that OMB did not believe the sufficiency or timeliness of control plans present material issues that warranted OMB action. While OMB acknowledged that almost all agency control plans were submitted after the statutory deadline, OMB staff stated that this delay in itself neither indicated the absence of controls nor the effectiveness of those controls. Further, OMB staff stated that it is agency management and not OMB that has responsibility for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. While agencies were responsible for submitting their internal control plans, federal law placed the responsibility of establishing the criteria for the internal control plans with OMB. Therefore, we believe that our recommendation is warranted. In January 2020, OMB informed us that there are no additional updates at this time regarding status, actions, or timelines to develop a strategy. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-19-64, Dec 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2018, DOD agreed with our recommendation. In March 2019, DOD reported that the Navy was working on establishing a process for its laboratories to use the funds made available to them through the laboratory initiated research authority and planned to have this new policy in place by September 1, 2019 but was subsequently changed to a new date of October 1, 2019. However, the Navy was unable to finalize its policy prior to the start of the 2020 fiscal year. In February 2020, a senior USD(R&E) official stated that internal discussions between Navy acquisition officials and Navy financial management officials were ongoing. This official further noted that the Navy planned to finalize its policy by December 1, 2020, in time to influence the Navy's fiscal year 2022 budget request.
GAO-18-557, Sep 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.
GAO-18-424, Aug 8, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials stated that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials estimate completing this by 9/30/2022.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials said that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials said that after agreement on the new funding targets is reached, work will begin to develop measurable performance goals. OSD officials estimate that this work will be completed by 9/30/2022.
GAO-18-321, Jun 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4851
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that critical deficiencies would be resolved before full-rate production, due in December 2019. In May 2020, we reported that DOD delayed its full-rate production decision from December 2019 to between September 2020 and March 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to a DOD official, as of July 2020, the F-35 program office is in the process of revising its plan for improving the F-35's reliability and maintainability.
GAO-18-401, May 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, two current bills in Congress address this matter. First, the Return Expenses Paid and Yielded Act would amend the Arms Export Control Act to remove an exclusion from the definition of administrative expenses related to military pay and unfunded civilian retirement and other benefits, and would require DOD to review and report to Congress on options for further expanding the use of FMS administrative fees. Second, the Annual Duplication Report Act of 2019 would require DOD to assess and report on (1) any expenses incurred by the U.S. government in operating the FMS program that are not paid for by the administrative fee, (2) their estimated annual cost, (3) the costs and benefits of funding such expenses, and (4) any legislative changes needed to allow the FMS administrative fee to pay for such expenses.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2018, DSCA had planned to update its policy to clarify its process for completing comprehensive reviews of the administrative fee rate to ensure that adequate planning for the next rate review allows it to be completed on time. However, in updating its policy in April 2019, DSCA did not include any clarifications to ensure comprehensive reviews would be completed at least every 5 years or be adequately planned. As of August 2020, DSCA officials indicated they planned to take further action to address this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation. In October 2018, DSCA sent a memo to DCMA and DFAS directing them to resolve the reimbursement issues and to develop a corrective action plan. As of August 2020, DSCA officials estimated this corrective action plan would be implemented by December 2020. . We will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA partially concurred with this recommendation, noting that although performing a comprehensive review of the CAS fee rate every 5 years is a preferred practice, the agency did not plan to do so for its upcoming fee review due to various factors. In January 2020, DSCA lowered the CAS fee rate based on a rate review completed in 2019, six years after the prior rate review. In addition, in April 2019, DSCA updated related policy but included no clarifications to ensure future comprehensive reviews would be completed at least every 5 years or be adequately planned. As of August 2020, DSCA officials indicated they planned to take further action to address this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
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-18-218, Mar 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report. In its response, the department stated that it was working with the military departments to determine appropriate measures of future sustainment and would revise its guidance to require the military departments to incorporate measures of future sustainment into their assessments of privatized housing projects. In May 2019, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment stated that DOD anticipates being able to issue this guidance sometime in calendar year 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report and stated that it was working to further streamline the reporting format and data collection process to ensure more timely reporting to Congress. Subsequently, in September 2018 DOD issued its report to Congress on the financial condition of privatized housing covering fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and in May 2019 DOD issued the report covering fiscal year 2017. An official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment noted in May 2019 that the next report will cover updated reporting requirements from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. The official said that DOD was in the process of reviewing its schedule to determine when it will be able to submit the report covering fiscal year 2018, with the expectation that the submission will be made in December 2019 or no later than March 2020. The official added that collection, reconciliation, and coordination of the information in the report remains the biggest challenge to timely submittal, as well as other privatized housing-related work requirements. Because it is unclear whether future reports reflecting the updated reporting requirements will be submitted in a timely manner, we will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report and stated that it would ensure that financial information on future sustainment of each privatized housing project would be included in the report to Congress on privatized housing covering fiscal year 2017. However, the report covering fiscal year 2017 was issued in May 2019 and did not include financial information on the future sustainment of each privatized housing project. We will continue to monitor any actions DOD takes to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report. In its response, the department stated that it would issue guidance to the military departments to annually report on their assessment of the specific risk of changes in the basic allowance for housing to individual privatized housing projects and identify any courses of action to respond to the risks based on their significance. In May 2019, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment stated that DOD anticipates being able to issue this guidance sometime in calendar year 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report. In its response, the department stated that DOD has coordinated draft guidance with the military departments which it expected to issue in fiscal year 2018. However, in May 2019, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment stated that the guidance has been delayed due to other pressing requirements and DOD now anticipates being able to issue this guidance sometime in calendar year 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report. In its response, the department stated that it would revise its privatized housing guidance to require the military departments to define their risk tolerances regarding future sustainability of privatized housing projects. In May 2019, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment stated that DOD anticipates being able to issue this guidance sometime in calendar year 2019.
GAO-17-68, Jan 18, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1816
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In DOD's response to a draft of our report, DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated it planned to propose updated criteria to OMB to reflect current and evolving threats and reflect any changes in OCO policy under the new Administration. In October 2017, a DOD official stated that the department has discussed possible modifications to the criteria with the military departments and combatant commands, but had not made any formal recommendations to the OMB to revise the criteria. In May 2020, DOD officials stated they had re-evaluated the criteria, and were considering modifications that would take into account mission, instead of location, but OMB did not accept the modifications. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision requiring DOD and OMB to update their OCO criteria by September 2018. As of May 2020, neither DOD nor OMB has issued updated criteria, and DOD had not made any updates to Volume 12, Chapter 23 of its Financial Management Regulation that governs contingency operations to reflect updated criteria.
GAO-17-38, Nov 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. In 2017, DOD officials told us that they would include information about assumptions, a methodology, cost estimates, and timelines for achieving alternative reductions, but they were unable to provide any documentation of progress made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-16-406, Sep 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.
GAO-15-562, Jul 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2623
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agreed with our recommendation. In support of closing this recommendation, officials from BLM re-iterated their policy about sending updates regarding guidance changes, which is included in its directives handbook. They also provided us with an example of its timely communication to BLM employees to announce the issuance of its revised Fund Code Handbook. We reviewed the directives handbook and verified that it contains guidance for communicating policy and procedural changes affecting the mining law program's expenditure-related processes. While the guidance in the directives handbook is a good start towards meeting the intent of our recommendation, we communicated to BLM in fiscal year 2019 that the findings in the report were caused in part by inadequate communication processes and the accessibility of the guidance to staff. To address the recommendation, we would like to see evidence that BLM has established procedures to ensure proper communication of changes or policies to the staff using BLM guidance, which includes having written procedures on how BLM publishes updates or communicates policy information, where guidance should be published in BLM's internal page, and the BLM officials who are in charge of that process. In fiscal year 2020, we have sent additional follow-up questions to the agency and are currently waiting for a response. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-14-699, Aug 21, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corps developed a list of projects for deauthorization in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Section 1001, and provided the list to OMB for clearance on January 26, 2018. Additionally, on December 9, 2019, the Corps reported that it provided a list of projects eligible for deauthorization in FY 2020 to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for review. Upon approval, the list will be sent to OMB for clearance. After receiving OMB clearance, according to the Corps, the list will be provided to Congress and the public in accordance with WRDA. As of July 2020, we are continuing to monitor the Corps' progress in implementing the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and as of December 2016, a task order has been awarded for a contractor to prepare a comprehensive inventory of studies authorized by statute. The Corps reported that once the comprehensive inventory of studies is complete, the Corps will develop policies and procedures for the study deauthorization process and those policies and procedures will be used to carry out the process of deauthorizing studies. In March 2020, the Corps reported that it was working to develop a scheduled for providing us with a list of studies eligible for deathorization. As of July 2020, we are continuing to monitor the Corps' progress in implementing the recommendation.