Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that BLS explores cost-efficient ways to evaluate the data sources currently used to produce subpopulation indexes, such as by engaging more directly with other stakeholders or seeking input from its advisory groups and other knowledgeable entities about approaches to expand data collection in a cost-efficient manner. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Labor agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would continue to investigate improvements to subpopulation indexes.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that BLS explores the use of already collected National Accounts data to produce more accurate, timely, and relevant CPIs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Labor (DOL) disagreed with this recommendation, stating that the National Accounts data are not a replacement for Consumer Expenditure Survey data. We agree that the National Accounts data are not a wholesale replacement for the Consumer Expenditure Survey data, but it would still be useful to examine National Accounts data as an augmenting, alternative source of data to supplement or enrich the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Such an effort could potentially lead to more accurate, timely, and relevant CPIs. Although DOL noted that the Consumer Expenditure Survey is a continuous survey and that data are received quarterly, most CPIs still rely on expenditure weights based on Consumer Expenditure Survey data that are up to 4 years out-of-date. In addition, the Consumer Expenditure Survey faces increasing costs and declining response rates. DOL said it is exploring ways to accelerate the data collection and processing time and that it periodically investigates the frequency of updating expenditure weights. This is a laudable effort that we believe warrants further action to explore additional opportunities for improvement, such as researching the extent to which there are instances or categories for which the National Accounts data could be used to produce more up-to-date expenditure weights than the Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides guidance to the services, for example, in its forthcoming diversity and inclusion strategic plan, to develop plans, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor recruitment and retention efforts of female active-duty servicemembers in the military. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Army's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Navy's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Marine Corps' female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Air Force's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: GSA should assess and address the reliability of the information used to calculate reported cost savings for the broker program. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: GSA should develop outcome-based metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of using brokers to supplement the GSA's leasing workforce. (Recommendation 2)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide guidance in the DOD Financial Management Regulation on the timing of when DOD managers should use available tools to help ensure that monthly cash balances are within the upper and lower cash requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and plans to update guidance in Volume 2B, Chapter 9, Paragraph 090103 4.j. of the DOD Financial Management Regulation. The draft guidance provided by DOD stated that "Components should consider leveraging the aforementioned available cash management tools when cash execution is trending below/above plan for more than three consecutive months of execution." In August 2020, DOD told us that after coordination within DOD, they estimate the final guidance related to our recommendation will be included in the DOD Financial Management Regulation guidance by April 2021.

Recommendation: To improve operational efficiencies and reduce costs related to product management and services that support commissary operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chief Executive Officer of DeCA to conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to guide decisions on implementing the most cost-effective option as stocking and custodial services contracts are renewed, and on choosing product distribution options.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) agreed with GAO's March 2017 recommendation that it conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to guide decisions on implementing the most cost-effective option as stocking and custodial services contracts are renewed, and on choosing product distribution options. For example, according to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, DeCA conducted a cost-benefit analysis as part of renewing an agreement with one of the Navy Exchanges in May 2018 and will provide service on a reimbursable basis instead of using the commercial vendor. DeCA officials stated that they will also review product distribution options during commercial negotiations, including taking into account product sales and shipment requirements, among other things. As of January 2020, DOD has not provided documentation to confirm completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help improve the Five-Star System's ability to enable consumers to understand nursing home quality and make distinctions between high- and low- performing homes, the Administrator of CMS should add information to the Five-Star System that allows consumers to compare nursing homes nationally.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. CMS officials told us in July 2019 that they do not plan to implement this recommendation. We maintain that adding national comparison information is important.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the contributions of tax expenditures toward the achievement of agency goals are identified and measured, the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Treasury, should work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals, as appropriate--that is, they should identify which specific tax expenditures contribute to specific strategic objectives and agency priority goals.

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

Comments: As of December 2019, OMB had not begun to work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to the agencies' specific strategic objectives and agency priority goals, as GAO recommended in 2016. OMB staff told GAO that, although they agreed with the recommendation, it was not an effort they were pursuing due to competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. Without additional OMB assistance, agencies may continue to have difficulty identifying whether or which of the dozens of tax expenditures-representing an estimated $1.32 trillion in forgone revenues in fiscal year 2019-contribute to their goals.

Recommendation: To help college financial aid administrators more effectively implement eligibility rules for unaccompanied homeless youth, the Secretary of Education should make available an optional worksheet or form that college financial aid administrators can voluntarily use to document unaccompanied homeless youth status or encourage the use of existing forms that are available.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: Education agreed that it would be helpful to make forms developed by outside organizations knowledgeable about homelessness issues available for financial aid administrators to use for documenting the status of unaccompanied homeless youth. Education also said that it plans to highlight the availability of these forms and provide guidance at its annual conference and in updates to the Federal Student Aid Handbook. Education noted that it will not endorse the use of a specific form but that it will highlight forms that already exist that may be useful to financial aid administrators. In July 2020, Education reported that it planned to update the Federal Student Aid Handbook by the spring of 2021 to inform financial aid administrators about the availability of such forms that have been developed by outside entities. We will close this recommendation when Education provides GAO with the updated handbook.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agencies report consistent and comparable data on federal spending, the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Treasury, should provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential clarity, consistency, or quality issues with the definitions for specific data elements including Award Description and Primary Place of Performance and that they clearly document and communicate these actions to agencies providing this data as well as to end-users.

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

Comments: OMB has taken some actions to address this recommendation related to procurement awards, such as adopting a shorter character limit for the "Award Description" element and providing additional guidance for the "Primary Place of Performance" element. However, it needs to provide additional guidance for these data elements related to grant awards to ensure collection of consistent and comparable information.

Recommendation: To encourage plan sponsors to continue efforts to improve plan participation and overall retirement savings through the use of Qualified Default Investment Alternatives, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for the Employee Benefits Security Administration to assess the challenges that plan sponsors and stakeholders reported, including the extent to which these challenges can be addressed, and implement corrective actions through clarifying guidance or regulations, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In 2015, DOL noted that the agency would assess the challenges that plan sponsors and stakeholders had reported to GAO, decide in FY 2016 whether a broader public comment process (such as a Request for Information) or a research project would aid that assessment, and determine whether other actions, such as issuing clarifying guidance or regulations, would be beneficial to its stakeholders. In 2016, DOL confirmed that the agency continues to plan to take the above action. As of July 2017, DOL had not added a public comment process to EBSA's 2017 regulatory agenda, and had no specific timeline for any next action. In an April 2018 update, DOL responded that it had convened the 2018 ERISA Advisory Council (EAC) to study lifetime income solutions in the context of QDIAs with a focus on decumulation issues and rollovers. Among other recommendations, the EAC recommended to DOL that it clarify that sponsors may default participants into different options based on participant demographics because plan populations may not be sufficiently similar for a single default to be universally appropriate. However, DOL noted that it has not added a public comment process on QDIA issues to EBSA's regulatory agenda, and had no specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To balance combatant commanders' demands for forward presence with the Navy's needs to sustain a ready force over the long term and identify and mitigate risks consistent with Federal Standards for Internal Control, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to, to fully implement its optimized fleet response plan, develop and implement a sustainable operational schedule for all ships homeported overseas.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2015, the Navy reported that it had approved and implemented revised optimized fleet response plan schedules for all ships homeported overseas-six different operational schedules for various naval forces homeported in different overseas locations. We closed the recommendation as implemented in 2015. In 2017, the Navy suffered four significant mishaps at sea resulting in serious damage to its ships and the loss of 17 sailors. Three of the four ships involved were homeported in Japan. The resulting Navy investigations revealed that due to heavy operational demands, the Navy had not fully implemented the revised operational schedules it developed in 2015 for ships based in Japan. In light of this information, GAO re-opened this recommendation. As of February 2020, the Navy had developed a change to the operational schedule for ships homeported in Japan, but has not yet codified this change in Navy guidance. The Navy also established Commander, Naval Surface Group, Western Pacific (CNSGWP) to oversee surface ship maintenance, training, and certification for ships based in Japan. Due to continuing heavy operational demands, GAO will continue to monitor the Navy's adherence to the revised schedules before it closes this recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to establish guidelines on what constitutes a "current" ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes; the types of programs, if any, that do not require ACAT designations; and whether the rules for identifying current MDAPs would be appropriate for ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. Since that time, DOD has taken some steps to implement this recommendation, but has not established department-wide guidelines as we recommended. Starting in September 2018, DOD began providing the military departments with a capability to identify ACAT II and III programs using the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system. The DAVE system is now considered to be a trusted source for ACAT II and III program data. DOD, in consultation with the military departments, established standard data elements for collection across ACAT II and III programs for inclusion in DAVE, but the military departments determine individually what constitutes a "current" program and the types of programs that do not require ACAT designations. As of August 2019, the Army and Navy have established guidance regarding what constitutes an active ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to determine what metrics should be used and what data should be collected on ACAT II and III programs to measure cost and schedule performance; and whether the use of DAMIR and the MDAP selected acquisition report format may be appropriate for collecting data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation, but has yet to determine at the department level what metrics should be collected on ACAT II and III cost and schedule performance as we recommended. DOD determined that the use of the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system, which is closely related to DAMIR, was appropriate to collect information on ACAT II and III programs and has made that system available to the military departments. Specifically, DOD provided the military departments with the capability to identify ACAT II and III programs in DAVE/DAMIR in September 2018 and made the DAVE/DAMIR Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) workflow tool for cost and schedule data collection available for components' use in April 2019. However, according to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the military departments are responsible for individually determining what cost and schedule metrics to collect and monitor for ACAT II and III programs. According to December 2018 Army guidance, the Army will require all ACAT II and III programs use DOD's APB tool by the end of fiscal year 2019 to capture baseline cost, schedule, and performance parameters for ACAT II and III programs. According to Navy officials, the Navy is developing an APB tool in its for a future update of its acquisition information system that will collect APB cost and schedule information for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to assess the reliability of data collected on ACAT II and III programs and work with PEOs to develop a strategy to improve procedures for the entry and maintenance of data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back on the reliability of the data and plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Assistant Secretary of Defense directed the military departments and DOD components to assess the reliability of ACAT II and III data, but in July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on the results of the assessments reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Since that time, as of September 2018, DOD began providing standard data elements and definitions of those elements that it collects for ACAT II and III program identification in order to improve the consistency of data. However, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it is still up to the military departments to ensure the accuracy of data entered. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to develop implementation plans to coordinate and execute component initiatives to improve data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components provide an update on their plans to improve the availability and quality of ACAT II and III data. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on an assessment of the information reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment reiterated in August 2019 that while DOD now provides a department-wide system to be used for collecting basic program data for ACAT II and III programs, it remains the responsibility of the military departments to enter complete and accurate data. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force and Commander of SOCOM to establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with APB requirements in DOD policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to APB requirements for ACAT II and III programs. DOD has taken some steps related to this recommendation. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review their mechanisms for establishing and enforcing the APB requirements for all ACAT II and III programs. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, in 2019, DOD made its DAVE/DAMIR APB workflow tool available for military department use, and the Air Force elected to use the tool to create and track APBs for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to improve component procedures for notifying the Defense Acquisition Executive of programs with a cost estimate within 10 percent of ACAT I cost thresholds.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to notification requirements for programs approaching ACAT I cost thresholds. The Army and Navy have reiterated existing guidance and the Air Force is evaluating additional actions it might take to improve its notification procedures. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed in July 2018 that it does not plan to take additional actions to implement this recommendation, and as of August 2019, that office has not directed DOD components to improve their processes as we recommended .We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the CSA program, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to revise the SMS methodology to better account for limitations in drawing comparisons of safety performance information across carriers; in doing so, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to conduct a formal analysis that specifically identifies: (1) limitations in the data used to calculate SMS scores including variability in the carrier population and the quality and quantity of data available for carrier safety performance assessments, and (2) limitations in the resulting SMS scores including their precision, confidence, and reliability for the purposes for which they are used.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: FMCSA did not agree with our recommendation, disputing the methodology and conclusions in our report. However, we continue to believe that addressing Safety Measurement System (SMS) methodology limitations has merit and could help the agency better target FMCSA's resources to the carriers that pose the highest risk of crashing. For example, we found FMCSA requires a minimum level of information for a carrier to receive an SMS score; however, this requirement is not strong enough to produce sufficiently reliable scores. As a result, FMCSA identified many carriers as high risk that were not later involved in a crash, potentially causing FMCSA to miss opportunities to intervene with higher risk carriers. To fully implement this recommendation, FMCSA should revise SMS methodology to account for data limitations that limit comparisons so that the FMCSA is better positioned to identify and mitigate carriers that pose the greatest safety risks. FMCSA has recently developed and tested a new methodological approach that could potentially account for the limitations we identified. While FMCSA has not yet committed to deploying the new methodology, they hope to do so some time in 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the CSA program, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to ensure that any determination of a carrier's fitness to operate properly accounts for limitations we have identified regarding safety performance information.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) agreed with the basic principles that GAO addressed in this area, but disagreed with GAO's characterization of FMCSA's proposed Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) rule. In January 2016, FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed a revised methodology for issuance of a safety fitness determination for motor carriers. Specifically, the new methodology would have determined when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial motor vehicles in or affecting interstate commerce based on the carrier's on-road safety data; an investigation; or a combination of both. However, in July 2018, in part due to a review of SMS by the National Academies of Science congressionally mandated evaluation of SMS, FMCSA announced that the enhancements previously proposed will not be completed.

Recommendation: To establish full-risk rates for properties with previously subsidized rates that reflect their risk for flooding, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should direct the FEMA Administrator to develop and implement a plan, including a timeline, to obtain needed elevation information as soon as practicable.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of January 2020, FEMA continues its multi-year effort to redesign its risk rating system to reflect industry best practices, such as providing credible, understandable rates based on graduated risk. As part of this redesign, FEMA plans to obtain multiple sources of data and information about a property's risk of flooding--from which it may be able to derive elevation information on some properties--to develop the insurance rate. FEMA has delayed implementation of the new risk rating system until 2021, pending further analysis. In addition, FEMA issued a Request for Information on obtaining structural elevation information from third party sources and is reviewing responses from potential vendors. The agency also encourages subsidized policyholders who seek to ensure the appropriateness of their NFIP rates to voluntarily submit elevation documentation. We will continue to monitor the extent to which FEMA is able to produce elevation information for all currently subsidized properties.

Recommendation: To help maximize the use of available capacity at slot-controlled airports, enhance competition through greater airline access to slots, and enhance transparency of slot information, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to apply slot rules to individual slots, as opposed to pools of slots within a slot period.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2015, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the New York City area airports. The proposal included changes to how the FAA would determine compliance with minimum slot usage rules similar to GAO's recommendation and the WSG. Under that concept, a slot would only be considered for a flight or series of flights in a single slot and not potentially applied or averaged to more than one slot. The NPRM was withdrawn by DOT and FAA in April 2016 to allow further evaluation of recent changes in demand, competition, operations, and other factors in the New York City area airports. The FAA and the Office of the Secretary continue to evaluate the circumstances at the New York City area airports and DCA and, if necessary, will consider steps to ensure compliance with minimum slot usage, including future rulemaking. In March 2018, DOT indicated that it has no plans to initiate a rulemaking on this issue. As of June 2019, DOT plans no further action on this recommendation. However, GAO believes this recommendation continues to have merit.

Recommendation: With respect to possible future regulatory action, the DOT Secretary should consider requiring airlines to schedule a certain percentage, or all, of their slot allocations, similar to practices maintained elsewhere in the world.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Department concurs that any future rulemaking should consider changes to the minimum slot usage rules to improve slot utilization at the slot controlled airports and provide greater harmonization with industry standards applied at airports outside the U.S. The FAA and the Department of Transportation stated that they will evaluate the circumstances at the New York City area airports and DCA and, if necessary, will consider steps to improve slot utilization, including future rulemaking. As of June 2019, DOT plans no further action on this recommendation. However, GAO believes this recommendation continues to have merit.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should resume presenting tax expenditures in the budget together with related outlay programs to show a truer picture of the federal support within a mission area.

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

Comments: No executive action taken as of February 2020. OMB had not presented tax expenditures in the fiscal year 2021 budget together with the related outlay programs. OMB did not agree that GAO's September 2005 recommendation is necessary and stated that presenting information on tax expenditures together with related outlay programs is not useful for budgeting and that such a presentation is not part of the congressional budget process. However, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires a list of tax expenditures, including special tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential tax rates. Whereas OMB favors reporting tax expenditures separately from the rest of the budget, GAO has reported that an integrated presentation is also useful to show the relative magnitude of tax expenditures compared to spending and credit programs across mission areas. OMB previously presented tax expenditure sums alongside outlays and credit activity for each budget function in the federal budget from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, but discontinued the practice. Tax expenditures resulted in $1.32 trillion in forgone revenue in fiscal year 2019 and have been roughly approximate to federal discretionary spending levels in recent years.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should require that tax expenditures be included in the PART process and any future such budget and performance review processes so that tax expenditures are considered along with related outlay programs in determining the adequacy of federal efforts to achieve national objectives.

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

Comments: OMB made some progress in including tax expenditures along with related outlay programs in the executive branch's budget and performance review processes, as GAO recommended in September 2005. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not developed a systematic approach for conducting such reviews, and OMB staff told GAO that they were not pursuing the effort because of competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. Prior to that time, OMB had made some progress on the action. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that the administration would work toward examining the objectives and effects of the wide range of tax expenditures in the budget. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires OMB and the agencies to identify the relevant tax expenditures that contribute to each crosscutting priority goal. Beginning with its August 2012 update to Circular No. A-11 with guidance for implementing GPRAMA and continuing in subsequent annual updates, OMB has directed agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to each of their agency priority goals. Beginning with the July 2013 update, OMB expanded its guidance to include identifying these contributions to agency strategic objectives. In both its July 2013 and July 2014 guidance, OMB stated that it planned to work with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and agencies to facilitate alignment of tax expenditure information with agency priority goals and strategic objectives. However, in its June 2015 update of this guidance, OMB removed the language about working with Treasury and agencies to align tax expenditures with agency goals. OMB's December 2019 guidance still requires agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their agency priority goals and strategic objectives.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should develop and implement a framework for conducting performance reviews of tax expenditures. In developing the framework, the Director should (1) determine which agencies will have leadership responsibilities to review tax expenditures, how reviews will be coordinated among agencies with related responsibilities, and how to address the lack of credible performance information on tax expenditures; (2) set a schedule for conducting tax expenditure evaluations; (3) re-establish appropriate methods to test the overall evaluation framework and make improvements as experience is gained; and (4) to identify any additional resources that may be needed for tax expenditure reviews.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Treasury did not submit comments on this report and deferred to OMB. OMB agreed that this recommendation had promise and also said that tax expenditure evaluations were the responsibility of Treasury, which had access to the necessary data. As of February 2020, when the President's fiscal year 2021 budget was released, the Director of OMB had not developed a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance, as GAO recommended in June 1994 and again in September 2005. Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that developing an evaluation framework is a significant challenge due to limited data availability and analytical constraints of isolating the effect of any single program. The administration planned to focus on addressing some of these challenges so it can work toward crosscutting analyses that examine tax expenditures alongside related spending programs. However, OMB and Treasury have not reported on progress on this recommendation since the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. In December 2019, OMB said its Office of Economic Policy is responsible for the framework outline. OMB said it was exploring options to further develop its evaluation framework, which would include working with Treasury. The budget released in February 2020 did not provide an update on these evaluation framework efforts.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should develop and implement a framework for conducting performance reviews of tax expenditures. In developing the framework, the Director should (1) determine which agencies will have leadership responsibilities to review tax expenditures, how reviews will be coordinated among agencies with related responsibilities, and how to address the lack of credible performance information on tax expenditures; (2) set a schedule for conducting tax expenditure evaluations; (3) re-establish appropriate methods to test the overall evaluation framework and make improvements as experience is gained; and (4) to identify any additional resources that may be needed for tax expenditure reviews.

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

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of February 2020, when the President's fiscal year 2021 budget was released, the Director of OMB had not developed a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance, as GAO recommended in June 1994 and again in September 2005. Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that developing an evaluation framework is a significant challenge due to limited data availability and analytical constraints of isolating the effect of any single program. The administration planned to focus on addressing some of these challenges so it can work toward crosscutting analyses that examine tax expenditures alongside related spending programs. However, OMB and Treasury have not reported on progress on this recommendation since the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. As of December 2019, OMB said its Office of Economic Policy is responsible for the framework outline. OMB said it was exploring options to further develop its evaluation framework, which would include working with Treasury. The budget released in February 2020 did not provide an update on these evaluation framework efforts.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should require that tax expenditures be included in the PART process and any future such budget and performance review processes so that tax expenditures are considered along with related outlay programs in determining the adequacy of federal efforts to achieve national objectives.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2005, the Department of the Treasury responded that this recommendation did not relate to Treasury. OMB made some progress in including tax expenditures along with related outlay programs in the executive branch's budget and performance review processes, as GAO recommended in September 2005. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not developed a systematic approach for conducting such reviews, and OMB staff told GAO that they were not pursuing the effort because of competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that the administration would work toward examining the objectives and effects of the wide range of tax expenditures in the budget. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires OMB and the agencies to identify the relevant tax expenditures that contribute to each crosscutting priority goal. Beginning with its August 2012 update to Circular No. A-11 with guidance for implementing GPRAMA and continuing in subsequent annual updates, OMB has directed agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to each of their agency priority goals. Beginning with the July 2013 update, OMB expanded its guidance to include identifying these contributions to agency strategic objectives. In both its July 2013 and July 2014 guidance, OMB stated that it planned to work with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and agencies to facilitate alignment of tax expenditure information with agency priority goals and strategic objectives. However, in its June 2015 update of this guidance, OMB removed the language about working with Treasury and agencies to align tax expenditures with agency goals. OMB's December 2019 guidance still requires agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their agency priority goals and strategic objectives.