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: "Civilian employees"
GAO-20-532, Aug 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with our recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.
GAO-20-148, Oct 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-240, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its written response, which is included in our report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provided in August 2020, DOD states that this recommendation is no longer applicable due to the establishment of the U.S. Space Force on December 20, 2019. All space acquisition programs previously in the Air Force were transferred to the Space Force upon stand up and funding followed with the FY21 President's Budget submission. DOD also states in the CAP that the transfer of the other military services' and defense agencies' space acquisition programs and funding to the Space Force is currently in process. Once the other organizations' space acquisition programs are fully transferred to the U.S. Space Command, we will consider whether the recommendation should be closed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has not taken action to implement this recommendation. As discussed in our report, DOD did not concur with this recommendation. DOD stated that the manner in which personnel data are captured in its human resource and development systems makes it difficult to identify, collect, and maintain data on the military and civilian personnel working on space acquisition programs. Further, DOD raised concerns over contractual limitations on collecting and maintaining data on contractor and FFRDC personnel supporting space acquisitions. We continue to believe that collecting and maintaining more robust data on the space acquisition workforce will support DOD's planning efforts for establishing new space organizations and better inform Congress. In our report, we point out that DOD could make minor modifications to its personnel data system to facilitate identifying and routinely tracking accurate information on the military and civilian segments of the space acquisition workforce. Further, collecting information on the general levels of contractor and FFRDC effort supporting space acquisition activities and the resources spent to obtain this assistance, could be useful in helping DOD determine the right number and mix of military and civilian personnel needed in the new space organizations. In its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provided in August 2020, DOD states that it has determined that due to the fluidity of support provided by individual workforce members to specific programs, it is not feasible to collect data attributing individual support to specific space acquisition programs. In the CAP, DOD also states that since the U.S. Space Force has been established, DOD has a limited ability to produce data on the organic space acquisition workforce comprised of former USAF units, and DOD will determine the best format and means of reporting this data. DOD further states that once the space acquisition programs from other military services and Defense Agencies are transferred to the Space Force, it will need to determine how best to integrate acquisition workforce data from the newly assigned agencies and units. Once that is determined, DOD will attempt to provide an aggregate report of available space acquisition workforce data to the Congress. Once the other organizations' space acquisition programs are fully transferred to the U.S. Space Command and are included under its reporting, we will consider whether to close the recommendation.
GAO-19-102, Nov 27, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-217, Feb 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and indicated the Department of the Navy plans to improve its civilian and military program manager training, mentoring, retention, and selection programs across the program management community and the acquisition workforce as a whole. Regarding training, in January 2019 the Navy sent its first cohort of participants to a DOD talent exchange program with industry, open to both civilian and military acquisition personnel, and including a focus on the program management workforce. Of the second Navy cohort that started in this program in early 2020, eight were civilians in the program management career field. Regarding mentoring, in October 2018 the Department of the Navy issued a program management career field guidebook that included career path roadmaps and descriptions of skills and competencies - such as mentoring individuals and teams - needed to advance for program management personnel across the Navy. Regarding selection, the Navy is developing a talent management system to enable talent identification, career development, and succession management across the acquisition workforce. A pilot of this system started in 2020, and includes the program management career field. The Navy expects to complete this pilot in fiscal year 2021, and to use data from the system to support the selection of key leadership positions including program managers and deputy program managers.
GAO-17-506, Sep 29, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation and stated in July 2020 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it.
GAO-17-127, Oct 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2700
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM agreed with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM told us it will establish a plan to make payroll data available through analytical tools such as FedScope no later than the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM will need to improve the availability of payroll data-either from the existing EHRI system or the new employee digital record-by ensuring the data are prepared and made available for analytics research.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM agreed with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM reported that it plans to begin follow-up efforts with agencies and shared service providers on payroll data errors and anomalies and to notify data providers of problems. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM will need to follow up with shared services centers and agencies regarding issues identified with the payroll data they submit to EHRI. These steps will help ensure the quality of historical and current payroll data. They will also ensure that system detected errors are resolved and do not compound over time.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM concurred with our recommendation, but has not yet developed a plan for integrating payroll into the larger suite of EHRI databases.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: While OPM concurred with our recommendation, the agency has not evaluated or implemented, for Payroll data, the control activities and edit checks that are currently used to support the reliability of the other EHRI datasets.
GAO-16-820, Sep 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. In response to a provision in Senate Report 115-125, we assessed DOD's interim and final draft responses to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to assess the required number of wartime medical and dental personnel. In our ensuing February 2019 report, we found that DOD had not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress. Specifically, leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. We found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. Further, although not required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD's assessment did not include civilian medical personnel. Until DOD completes such an analysis, it cannot be assured that its medical force is appropriately sized.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In February 2019, we reported that DOD had begun work on a metric to assess the clinical readiness of providers, but noted that the department's methodology was limited. In particular, the methodology did not provide complete, accurate, and consistent data or fully demonstrate results. Further, although DOD provided documentation in February 2020 outlining the medical specialties to which its clinical readiness metric would apply, it has not fully budgeted for the cost of implementing the metric. DOD's July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 notes steps taken to assess the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload, but does not address the time active-duty providers devote to military-specific responsibilities. Until DOD addresses these issues, its efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards will remain limited.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020 DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD stated in response to this recommendation that facilities in several large Military Health System (MHS) markets are staffed in a multi-service manner. While this is an important point, it remains true that, as the report notes, DOD's model "assumed uniformed providers were interchangeable," and that such an approach does not reflect the single-service nature of most medical treatment facilities within the MHS. Until DOD's model reflects this, the results of its approach will continue to be limited.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD included the sources of its data and some data limitations, but not efforts to test data reliability. Until DOD fully incorporates assessments of data reliability into its analysis of future changes to the Military Health System, such as its implementation plan Section 703, it will continue to lack assurance that its approach is fully supported by reliable information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, DOD's plan to restructure MTFs in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD concluded that civilian health care was more cost-effective than care in its MTFs without considering other assumptions that could affect its conclusions. For example, DOD applied assumptions about the cost of military personnel salaries, MTF workloads, and reimbursement rates for TRICARE that likely underestimated the cost-effectiveness of MTFs. Until DOD's approach to assessing changes to its network of MTFs is accompanied by cost estimates with an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate, its approach will remain limited.
GAO-15-511, Jun 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5741
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this action, and as of December 2019, had taken steps to improve oversight of LQA determinations by DOD components; however, it had not issued guidance that requires the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy or DCPAS to monitor reviews of LQA eligibility determinations by DOD components. At the direction of DCPAS, DOD components completed reviews and submitted reports of overseas allowances paid to a sampling of overseas employees for calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017. According to DCPAS officials, in DOD's 2017 review of overseas allowances, one employee was identified as having erroneously received LQA. This number is lower than the three employees identified during the 2016 review and lower than the 11 employees identified in the 2015 review. Additionally, in September 2019, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy issued a memorandum requesting DOD components to complete a review of overseas allowances and differentials, including LQA, paid to overseas employees during calendar year 2018. In January 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a memorandum that clarified LQA eligibility requirements as applied and interpreted in recent Office of Personnel Management compensation claim decisions and the Department of State Standardized Regulations. The memorandum also required components to screen relevant records and determine if there are any employees who are no longer eligible to receive LQA based on the compensation claim decisions and Department of State Standardized Regulations. Finally, according to DCPAS officials, in December 2019, DOD was revising DOD's LQA instruction to incorporate the new LQA guidance from the January 2018 memorandum. However, it is unclear whether the revised instruction once issued will require the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary or DCPAS to monitor the reviews conducted by DOD components to identify any potentially inconsistent eligibility determinations and ensure corrective action is taken, as was the intent of GAO's recommendation.
GAO-15-349, Jun 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation and noted that it has an existing process for oversight and reporting of the use of soldiers replacing or converting functions previously performed by contractors and planned to develop a similar policy to address oversight on soldiers replacing or converting functions previously performed by civilians. As of July 2019, the Army has not provided an update on the development of this policy.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation and noted that it would be unreasonable to require tracking the amount of time soldiers are used as borrowed military personnel because it would be overly burdensome and that Army Regulation 570-4 allows for the use of soldiers for training purposes or for temporary functions. In July 2019, the Army indicated that the revision to Army Regulation 570-4 will be issued in December 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army partially concurred with our recommendation. In their comments the Army noted that it has issued guidance establishing the appropriate use of military manpower and was in the process of incorporating this guidance into Army Regulation 570-4. In July 2019, the Army indicated that the revision of Army Regulation 570-4 would be issued in December 2019.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. However, the Army noted that it already has a process requiring that a cost analysis take place. Additionally, the Army stated that the process of conducting a cost analysis should be conducted at the headquarter level and that the Army will issue policy to institute this. As of July 2019 the Army has not provided an update on the status of this policy or a status on implementing the recommendation.
GAO-14-529, Jun 17, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, but did not elaborate as to why. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented an administrative furlough since our 2014 report nor has it produced any guidance regarding the recommendation. We will continue to monitor for the development of guidance or a potential DOD administrative furlough.
GAO-14-71, Nov 12, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3489
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's response, the department detailed ongoing efforts to validate personnel requirements and stated that revising the scope of the National Guard Bureau's study would eliminate the ability of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard to identify their own personnel requirements. The department further stated that when shared functions are being studied, coordination should be increased between the staff elements to ensure that the correct workload is captured, requirements are not duplicated, and process efficiencies are maximized. However, we found minimal coordination on studies examining the five functions that the National Guard identified as being staffed with both Army National Guard and Air National Guard personnel. As of July 2020, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) had not assessed and validated personnel requirements at the state Joint Force headquarters.
GAO-13-646, Sep 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3489
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially agreed with GAO's recommendation. In its comments on GAO's September 2013 report DOD noted that to meet the requirements of the Budget Control Act of 2011 it would consider a wide range of options, and if any of these options required additional analysis of the location of AFRICOM headquarters, DOD would conduct a more comprehensive and well-documented analysis. However, in June 2019, DOD officials stated that the department had not conducted any additional analysis on the permanent placement of AFRICOM headquarters. Furthermore, DOD officials stated that AFRICOM would remain in Stuttgart, Germany, for the foreseeable future and no additional analysis was being planned. As of January 2020, DOD had not provided additional information to indicate progress on this recommendation. GAO maintains that such an analysis is needed and until the costs and benefits of maintaining AFRICOM headquarters in Germany are specified and weighed against the costs and economic benefits of moving the command, the department may be missing an opportunity to accomplish its missions successfully at a significantly lower cost.
GAO-11-809, Sep 21, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3604
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that leadership accountability is essential to the success of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and released an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (ODMEO), to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate, at a minimum, compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing polices, plans, and programs. The updated instruction also directs the Commandant, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), to tailor training materials to servicemember professional development levels and associated leadership duties and responsibilities. As of February 2020, DOD had not completed development of the compliance standards or training materials. We will monitor DOD actions on this issue.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has updated its guidance on sexual harassment, including a requirement for sharing the results of command climate assessments with the next higher level of command, but has not yet implemented an oversight mechanism to verify and track commanders' compliance with requirements to conduct such assessments. DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement the recommendation through revisions to its guidance. According to DOD, a 2013 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on sexual assault prevention and response outlined requirements addressing leadership accountability for preventing sexual harassment. The memorandum included a requirement that the results of command climate surveys be provided to the next level up in the chain of command, and it directed service chiefs, through their respective military department secretaries, to develop methods to assess the performance of commanders in establishing command climates of dignity and respect. The Secretary of Defense also issued a memorandum addressing prevention and response of sexual harassment in 2014, and DOD updated its guidance on sexual harassment in 2015. In 2016, DOD stated that further revisions to guidance were forthcoming to provide a framework for oversight of sexual harassment. This framework, among other things, would address standards for holding leaders accountable for promoting, supporting, and enforcing sexual harassment policies. DOD issued a new DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, in February 2018 but has not implemented an oversight framework as of February 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that as part of its revised guidance it proposed to strengthen and institutionalize the responsibilities and authorities needed for successful implementation of the department's sexual harassment policies. In February 2018, DOD took action toward addressing this recommendation and issued an update to DOD Instruction 1020.03, Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, that directs the Director, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, to ensure that DOD components' harassment prevention and response programs incorporate , at a minimum, (1) long-term goals, objectives, and milestones; (2) results-oriented performance measures to assess effectiveness; and (3) compliance standards for promoting, supporting, and enforcing policies, plans, and programs. As of February 2020, DOD has not developed and aggressively implemented an oversight framework, as we recommended. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions.
GAO-11-163, Feb 10, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, DOD officials responsible for policy concerning deployed civilians clarified that DOD policy states deployed civilians are eligible for medical care at the same level and scope as military personnel. However, as of November 2019 they were unable to confirm whether policy in U.S. Central Command reflects this requirement. .
GAO-10-102, Oct 28, 2009
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.