Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the progress the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and identified an action officer to lead implementation of this recommendation. DOD stated that it is developing a sampling plan with criteria to consider for assessing the consistent use of standard designs. DOD stated that it would identify projects that were completed during the year that used standard designs and that it would then assess the progress that the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently by sampling from the completed projects. DOD stated that, based on the results of this analysis, it would adjust the metrics and frequency of future analyses, as appropriate. DOD stated that it expects this effort to be completed in Spring 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the effects of the use of standard designs, specifically the progress the Centers are making in reducing design costs and time, construction costs and time, and change orders. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and stated that it planned to establish relevant performance measures to analyze efforts to reduce design costs and time, construction costs and time, and the number of change orders. DOD stated that it expects to develop standards containing the metrics, frequency of analysis, and means of reporting. DOD stated that it expects to present the results of its analysis at the FY2020 Military Programs After Action Review in January 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, provide updated guidance for the oversight of privatized military housing, to include oversight objectives for each service to monitor the physical condition of privatized homes over the remaining duration of the ground leases. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD (S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance requiring the military departments to monitor work order completion for housing privatized under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative based on a combination of resident input, timeliness of work order completion, and number of repeat work orders for the same repair. The guidance also required increased tracking of MHPI project work orders by installation staff. Moving forward, the ASD(S) plans to issue quarterly program review guidance that establishes oversight objectives for the military departments to monitor the physical condition of MHPI housing over the duration of their project ground leases, formalizing the requirement that the data be monitored by the Chief Housing Officer. DOD expects this to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should take steps, in collaboration with the Army's private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 2

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Secretary of the Army has taken several steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the Army published the Portfolio and Asset Management Handbook creating a multi-tiered assessment approach of performance metrics to measure the health of each privatized home through inspection, assessment, satisfaction, and feedback. The Army and the private housing partners revised the Incentive Fee Performance Management Plan, placing increased emphasis on resident satisfaction and work order/maintenance management. The Army also put Commanders in charge, ensuring Army leadership at every Army installation is tracking housing quality and safety. In late 2020, the Army plans to review and evaluate these actions and make a determination by 31 Jan 2021 if any changes or revisions are needed to best implement the recommendation. As such, we will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should take steps, in collaboration with the Air Force's private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Air Force is engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the Air Force tasked each of the Military Housing Offices to inspect all move-in, move-out, and change of occupancy maintenance events and all emergency, urgent, and life, health, and safety work orders, which is outlined in Air Force guidance. The Air Force is also engaging in several ongoing actions. In response to a memo to the military departments to provide consistency of performance incentive fees, the Air Force was negotiating with the privatized housing project owners to update performance incentive fee metrics in accordance with ASD directed categories and weightings. As of August 2020, agreements had been finalized with 2 partners and work was ongoing with the remaining partners. In addition, the Air Force was working with the project owners to deploy Satisfacts, a survey tool to independently measure resident satisfaction with projects' work order performance, across all Air Force projects with an expected completion by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these recommendations.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps, in collaboration with the Navy and Marine Corps' private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy and Marine Corps are engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a centralized electronic data warehouse, which receives data from privatized housing partner maintenance systems to display work order and survey performance dashboards. By February 2021, the Navy expects to complete the development of metrics displayed by the data warehouse to include key service call performance metrics and resident feedback data. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing a web-based monitoring matrix tool housing officials can use to evaluate the performance of privatized housing partners. The tool is intended to provide improved tracking capabilities and improved accessibility to information, thus providing more consistent oversight and improved advocacy service members and their families. The Navy is also working to hire 247 additional Navy and Marine Corps housing staff to review and analyze private partner provided recurring maintenance and customer satisfaction reports in an effort to strengthen oversight and monitoring, with an estimated completion of September 2020. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the status of these and other efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments and private housing partners, establish minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for work order data collection for comparability across installations and projects and to track trends over time. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: e Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD stated that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, plans to issue a policy directing the military departments to establish, to the maximum extent practical, minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for MHPI housing unit work order collection to aid in comparability across installations and projects, and for tracking trends over time. However, DOD noted that the department cannot mandate changes to existing MHPI project legal documents. DOD estimates that this effort will be completed by December 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment require the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by the private housing partners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance directing the military departments to exercise proper oversight to ensure Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects perform in accordance with legal agreements, to include due diligence in monitoring and auditing project maintenance records and other project performance data. The guidance also required military departments to review their entire portfolios of MHPI projects to ensure accurate and appropriate work order management processes. In response to the new guidance, DOD noted that the military departments put in place appropriate oversight measures and undertook the required reviews, though the investigations of project business practices were ongoing in some cases. As another step, the ASD(S) plans to issue guidance directing the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by their respective MHPI Project Owners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. DOD expects this to be completed by the end of September 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, develop a process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data from the military departments to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation based on the fact that the draft report listed the incorrect office as the source for addressing the deficiency, but subsequently changed its response to concur after the recommendation was directed to the appropriate office in the final report. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) plans to issue guidance establishing a department-wide process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way effective with the survey collection effort in Fiscal Year 2021. The department expects this effort to be completed by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment provides additional explanation of the data collected and reported in future reports to Congress, such as explaining the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data, among other things. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) would provide additional explanation of the MHPI resident satisfaction data collected and reported in future annual Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) reports to Congress, effective with the annual report covering fiscal year 2019. DOD noted that the additional information will include, among other things, an explanation of the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data. As of August 2020, the annual MHPI report covering fiscal year 2018 was in final coordination and the department noted that the report would addresses a vast majority, but not all, of the requirements identified in our recommendation. DOD noted that the additional information would be provided in the next annual MHPI report. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should develop and implement a plan to clearly and systematically communicate to residents the difference between the military housing office and the private partner. At a minimum, these plans should include the Army housing office's roles, responsibilities, locations, and contact information and should ensure that all residents are aware that they can directly contact Army housing office officials. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its response, DOD noted that the Army developed a "Plain Language" briefing as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that included the Army Housing Office's roles, responsibilities, location, and contact information at each privatized housing project site. DOD noted that the intent of the briefing was to ensure that all residents were aware of their ability to directly contact Army Housing Office and/or the Garrison Commanders. DOD stated that the briefing was disseminated to all of the Military Housing Offices, who are using it in newcomer briefings, and stated that the briefing would be provided to all current residents of privatized military housing, but that measure would not be tracked due to attrition. In addition, DOD noted that Headquarters, Department of the Army was tasking Army Materiel Command to develop a more detailed plan to communicate to residents the difference between the Army Housing Office and the private housing partner. The Army's intent is to not only capture residents upon their arrival at an installation, but making the services of the MHO known over the duration of a resident's time on at installation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop and implement a plan to clearly and systematically communicate to residents the difference between the military housing office and the private partner. At a minimum, these plans should include the Navy housing office's roles, responsibilities, locations, and contact information and should ensure that all residents are aware that they can directly contact Navy housing office officials. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy has taken various steps to address this recommendation, with additional steps planned. For example, the Navy has ensured that each installation has a specific issue resolution process description marketing flyer available, both in hard copy and on the public housing websites, with a reminder that residents can contact both the privatized housing property manager and the Navy housing office with any issues. Moreover, every housing unit has been provided with a refrigerator magnet reminding residents that they can and should contact the Navy housing office if they have any issues with their home. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have established a requirement to contact each privatized housing resident not later than 15 days after move-in and again 60 days after move-in to provide an opportunity to request assistance and remind them of available support. Moving forward, the Navy has an ongoing effort to require private housing companies to market the same messaging as the service issue resolution processes for the MHOs that they support, for consistent advocacy messaging to the tenants. The information will be added to PPV partner websites, printed material and resident handbooks. The Navy also plans to use its annual survey to tracks resident satisfaction and awareness of the Navy's issue resolution process, with expected completion by October 2020. In addition, the Marine Corps has identified a near-term initiative to procure name tags for all MHO employees to wear, identifying themselves as distinct and separate from privatized housing property management company, which will be standardized across all USMC installations. The Marine Corps also plans to develop a standard welcome aboard package to include magnets and other items with key point of contact information. The Marine Corps expects these efforts to be completed by the end of September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, assess the risks of proposed initiatives aimed at improving the privatized military housing program on the financial viability of the projects. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, as the Chief Housing Officer, planned to issue a policy establishing the assessment of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project financial viability as part of quarterly program reviews as a long-term requirement. The department noted that the program review data would be augmented by input from the MHPI companies, who are assessing the likely impact of proposed initiatives in conjunction with their third party lenders. The department expected this effort to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Administrative Operations should develop and document a process for estimating total activation costs for major medical facility projects. This process should reflect the 12 steps for developing a reliable cost estimate outlined in the GAO Cost Guide. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy to document its process for estimating total life cycle activation costs for major medical facility projects. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Administrative Operations should develop and document a process for comparing actual activation costs for major medical facility projects to estimates. This process should identify the personnel responsible for comparing the estimated costs to the actual expenses and document their responsibilities. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy that will include guidance on comparison of actual activation costs to project estimates and that will document the parties responsibility for comparing these costs. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Administrative Operations should define and document what items and services officials can purchase with activation funds. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy that will define and document what items and services officials can purchase with activation funds. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Administrative Operations should define and document when facilities should cease to spend activation funds. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, VHA is developing a policy that will define and document when facilities should cease to spend activation funds. VHA expects to complete this effort by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should report for Congress and the public—for example, on GSA's prospectus website—the extent to which completed projects' construction costs and schedules were rebaselined and final construction costs, to include any additional funding tenant agencies may have provided to GSA for changes. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) partially concurred with this recommendation. On February 6, 2020, GSA stated that it will publish summary schedule and budget results for completed projects on GSA's public-accessible prospectus website. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should update its 2005 Commissioning Guide—or replace it with appropriate industry-recognized standards and guidance—to be consistent with GSA's current design standards and industry practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation, and on February 6, 2020, stated that GSA will publish updated Commissioning Guidance. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should identify and communicate—such as through policy, guidance, or other appropriate mechanism—(a) when and how Post Occupancy Evaluations should be conducted for completed projects considering resource constraints and (b) how recommendations or lessons learned from those evaluations are effectively communicated to future project teams. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation, and on February 6, 2020, stated that GSA will publish program guidance on how and when Post Occupancy Evaluations are conducted and communicate recommendations or lessons learned to future project teams. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen the Corps' internal review process for feasibility studies by including steps to ensure consistency with best practices for transparency, such as verifying that all of the important assumptions and limitations in models and their implications for the economic analysis are consistently, clearly, and fully described. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works)
Status: Open

Comments: In its letter dated January 14, 2020, the Department of Defense concurred with GAO's recommendation and provided a corrective action plan in response to the recommendation. According to the corrective action plan, the Corps estimates that guidance will be issued to ensure that Corps reports adequately describe and justify the models, analytical choices, assumptions, and data used such that it is consistent with best practices by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs update its cost-estimating procedures for cemetery construction projects to fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The FTA administrator should ensure that FTA's cost estimating information for project sponsors is consistent with all 12 steps found in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide and needed for developing reliable cost estimates. [Recommendation 1]

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, FTA had posted GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide to its website. However, FTA has yet to update its cost estimating information, which does not align with GAO's best practices in five areas: (1) risk and uncertainty analysis; (2) sensitivity analysis; (3) identifying ground rules and assumptions; (4) obtaining the data; and (5) presenting cost estimates to management. GAO continues to believe that because FTA's cost estimating information does not align with all 12 steps found in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, FTA lacks reasonable assurance that sponsors have developed and communicated high-quality cost estimates. We will continue to monitor FTA's actions.

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should provide a central, easily accessible source with all of FTA's cost estimating information to help project sponsors improve the reliability of their cost estimates. [Recommendation 2]

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, FTA had developed a webpage with some cost estimating information for project sponsors. However, the website did not include key information for project sponsors which FTA had previously provided to GAO for its analysis of cost estimating information. We continue to believe that providing a centralized location to share existing FTA documentation with sponsors, and ensuring that the documentation incorporates best practices from GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, such as sensitivity analyses, could improve the reliability of sponsors' cost estimates and could reduce the risk of cost overruns for Capital Investment Grant (CIG) New Starts applicants and grantees. We will continue to monitor FTA's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should assess the agency's large facilities oversight workforce to identify any project management competency gaps, develop a plan to address any gaps and time frames for doing so, and monitor progress in closing them. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of September 2019, had awarded a contract for a proficiency assessment and workforce gap analysis. NSF anticipated finishing the proficiency assessment and workforce gap analysis by the second quarter calendar year 2020 and planned to consider options to address any identified gaps, such as identifying workforce development training opportunities. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should establish criteria for the project management expertise of award recipients for large facilities projects and incorporate the criteria in project requirements and external panel reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had drafted but not finalized new language for the Major Facilities Guide and related supplemental award terms and conditions for major facilities. The new language would require award recipients to document their plans for meeting project management competencies. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should ensure, through a requirement or other means, that award recipients for large facilities projects provide information to NSF on any lessons learned or best practices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had drafted but not finalized supplemental award terms and conditions for major facilities to require recipients to participate in NSF's process for identifying and sharing lessons learned on projects - for example, by sending appropriate staff to the annual major facilities workshop that NSF hosts to provide a collaborative forum for continuous learning and information-sharing or by presenting lessons learned or good practices at the workshop. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should define and measure deferred maintenance for inland waterways in a way that enables the Corps to clearly communicate estimated costs for maintenance needs. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of December 2019, the Corps has developed a definition for "deferred maintenance" for civil works and plans to request funding to establish a team to review maintenance data. The Corps anticipates implementing this recommendation by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: The Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should pursue ways to increase the Corps' ability to use available funding for inland waterways construction more efficiently and, should changes to the Corps' authority be necessary, develop a legislative proposal to request such authority. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of December 2019, the Corps is working to review existing authorities, funding, and contracting mechanisms to identify potential courses of action to address GAO's recommendation. The Corps anticipates implementing this recommendation in 2021.

Recommendation: Congress should consider designating an agency to regularly collect and maintain specified cost-related data from credit allocating agencies and periodically assess and report on LIHTC project development costs. (Matter for Congressional Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, Congress had not designated an agency to regularly collect and maintain data on LIHTC project development costs.

Recommendation: IRS's Associate Chief Counsel, in consultation with Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, should require general contractor cost certifications for LIHTC projects to verify consistency with the developer cost certification. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS disagreed with the recommendation and had not taken action to implement it as of August 2020. We maintain that requiring general contractor cost certifications would help address a known fraud risk.

Recommendation: To help allocating agencies analyze development cost trends and drivers and make comparisons to other agencies, IRS's Commissioner of the Small Business/Self-Employed Division should encourage allocating agencies and other LIHTC stakeholders to collaborate on the development of more standardized cost data, considering information in this report about variation in data elements, definitions, and formats. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS disagreed with the recommendation and had not taken action to implement it as of August 2020. We maintain that greater standardization of LIHTC cost data would facilitate analysis of cost drivers and cost-management practices.

Recommendation: IRS's Associate Chief Counsel, in consultation with Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, should communicate to credit allocating agencies how to collect information on and review LIHTC syndication expenses, including upper-tier partnership expenses. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS disagreed with the recommendation and had not taken action to implement it as of August 2020. We maintain that communicating expectations about the collection and review of syndication expenses would enhance program transparency and allocating agency financial assessments.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should work with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA's) Office of Construction and Facilities Management to ensure that VHA incorporates the 12 steps in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide in VHA's updated construction projects' cost-estimating guidance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Capital Asset Management Engineering and Support (OCAMES) is working with the Office of Construction and Facility Management (OCFM) to make necessary updates to CFM's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. GAO has reviewed VA's revisions and found that while they incorporated information on two of the 12 steps in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, the guidance currently meets or substantially meets only 4 of the 12 steps. GAO met with OCFM and OCAMES staff in April 2020 to further discuss our guidance and how to apply it. The VA staff will consider how to further apply our guidance.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should obtain information on cost increases, schedule delays, and reasons for contract modifications in its updated Capital Asset Database through requiring medical center staff to provide the information or another appropriate method. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OCAMES is finalizing updates and fixing issues related to improvements to the Capital Asset Database; these updates include additional information related to change orders. Due to unexpected challenges with data connections and issues; however, these improvements have not yet been completed. The change in completion date is caused by data connection issues and progress on the overall system was stalled. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should develop a comprehensive plan that includes elements such as milestones and roles and responsibilities for updating VHA's Capital Asset Database. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OCAMES is still finalizing updates and fixing issues related to improvements to the Capital Asset Database. Until the updates have been finalized, roles and responsibilities cannot be created. Upon completion of updates, roles and responsibilities will be developed.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should revise the agency's policies for developing schedules for large facilities projects, and for reviewing those schedules, to better incorporate the best practices in GAO's schedule guide. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had updated its internal guidance to include a new section related to schedule reviews. The updated guidance states that the NSF Large Facilities Office will lead analysis of the schedule for each proposed major facilities project, which will include a technical evaluation by the sponsoring office. As further steps to implement this recommendation, NSF planned to develop (1) a new section of the Major Facilities Guide on schedule development, estimating, and analysis and (2) new internal guidance on including project schedules as part of external panels' oversight reviews. NSF anticipated completing these actions by mid-fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and the Environment work with DOD's construction agents, military departments, and other offices to improve DOD's MILCON cost estimating guidance (i.e., DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria) by fully incorporating all the steps needed for developing high-quality reliable cost estimates. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: HUD's Assistant Secretary for Housing should improve the accuracy of RAD leverage metrics--such as better selecting inputs to the leverage ratio calculation and clearly identifying what the leverage ratio measures--and calculate a private-sector leverage ratio. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: This recommendation remains open. HUD has described an ongoing evaluation of its leverage metrics. We will continue to review HUD's progress and post updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: HUD's Assistant Secretary for Housing should determine how it can use available program-wide data from public housing and Section 8 databases, in addition to resident logs, for analysis of the use and enforcement of RAD resident protections. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: This recommendation remains open. HUD plans to develop a methodology to track residents through individual HUD systems such as Public Housing program, RAD and Section 8 program databases. We will continue to review HUD's progress in implementing this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to systematically review data on municipal and industrial water storage agreements stored within the OMBIL system and correct errors, as appropriate, to ensure that the data are accurate and complete.

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

Comments: As of September 2020, based on information provided by the Corps, the agency has reviewed approximately half of the data and hopes to review the rest of the data by the end of June 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to collect and analyze data on the length of time it takes to complete the reallocation process.

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

Comments: As of September 2020, the Corps is studying how data are captured in the OMBIL system to ensure the agency has a sustainable approach that can be used to collect and analyze data into the future. The Corps hopes to complete its actions on this recommendation by the end of December 2021.

Recommendation: To improve insight into cost changes for individual ships in the Ford Class, the program office should prepare cost summary and funding summary sections for each individual ship in the class as part of the SAR for the overall Ford-Class program.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In its comments on our draft report DOD disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it currently provides progress reports to Congress on costs for CVN 78 and CVN 79. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the department continues to disagree with this recommendation. We continue to maintain that Selected Acquisition Reports represent the primary statutorily required means for DOD to report on program status. Grouping average unit costs for all Ford-class ships obscures individual ship cost growth and does not provide Congress with an adequate level of insight to monitor this over $55 billion program. Our recommendation would ensure that Congress receives insight into the costs of each existing and planned Ford-class ship. To fully implement this recommendation, the report should include cost information on individual ships.

Recommendation: To better assess OBO's performance, the Secretary of State should finalize the mechanisms OBO will use to centrally manage project management data (to include project cost and schedule information), currently termed the Ideal Operational State, and document through appropriate policies, procedures, or guidance.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, OBO reported the development of an Integrated Master Schedule template that will serve as a single source for project schedule information for all new capital projects, from inception to occupancy. OBO also reported a bureau-wide effort to develop a holistic Data Management Strategy, including project management data among additional categories of data such as portfolio, program, property, and human capital. GAO continues to monitor State's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to help ensure that DOD and the military departments are providing timely and consistent information on privately financed construction projects to Congress under DOD Instruction 7700.18, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--to identify the categories of privately financed construction projects, including gifts of major construction, that should be reported through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18; revise DOD Instruction 7700.18 and any other related policies, as appropriate, to clarify which project types are to be included in and excluded from this reporting process; and require that the military departments update their relevant policies to incorporate the revised policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it will make clarifications in the next revision of DOD Instruction 7700.18 to clarify the types of privately financed major construction projects that should be reported through the process outlined in the instruction. In July 2020 an official from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy) said that DOD had completed a draft update of the instruction that included language implementing GAO's recommendation. The official also stated that DOD Instruction 7700.18 is interrelated with other DOD guidance which is also being updated. DOD plans to complete the updates to all the relevant policies by June 2021.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that Congress receives all desired information on all gifts of major construction in a timely manner, the Secretary of Defense--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--should identify the lead organization(s) within DOD that will be responsible for developing DOD-wide policy for reporting gifts of major construction that are not reported through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that there was already an official, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, responsible for developing policies related to gifts of real property, including major construction. However, DOD has not formally assigned responsibility to the Under Secretary (now the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment) for developing DOD-wide policy on reporting gifts of major construction not covered by the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that Congress receives all desired information on all gifts of major construction in a timely manner, the Secretary of Defense--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--should establish DOD-wide policy, as appropriate, on congressional notification of gifts of major construction to cover all such gifts that are not to be reported to Congress through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18, and require that the military departments update their gift acceptance policies--and any other relevant policies--to incorporate procedures to support DOD's notification requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that Congress has provided a statutory framework for the department to accept gifts, including gifts of construction, without stipulating any reporting requirements. However, this is inconsistent with DOD Instruction 7700.18, which states that construction projects funded by donations are subject to reporting to Congress. The military departments have been accepting gifts of major construction and reporting some of them to Congress while not reporting others. If DOD does not take action to clarify its policy on reporting such gifts, Congress is likely to continue receiving inconsistent and incomplete information, and to lack an explanation of the scope of the information it is receiving. This in turn may impair Congressional oversight over such projects and their potential effects on future maintenance funding requirements since some projects will not be brought to Congress' attention. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

Recommendation: To better enable DOD to provide congressional decision makers with complete and reliable information on the total anticipated costs for the JIAC consolidation efforts, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment's Basing Office--in coordination with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Installations, Environment and Energy-- should update future construction cost estimates for consolidating the JIAC at RAF Croughton using best practices for cost estimating as identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. Specifically, cost estimates for the JIAC consolidation should fully incorporate all four characteristics of a high-quality, reliable estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on this report, DOD did not concur with our recommendation. DOD agreed that many components in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide are broadly applicable in the decision process leading up to a military construction budget request. However, DOD further stated that once military construction funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress, the department transitions to a project management mode, and it would be a waste of resources to continue to generate cost estimates once they have transitioned to managing project execution using actual cost data. However, as we note in the report, DOD guidance for estimating construction costs, DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria 3-740-05, states that in the MILCON program, construction cost estimates are prepared throughout the planning, design, and construction phases of a construction project to account for the refinement of the project?s design and requirements. The final estimate should document the department?s assessment of the program's most probable cost and ensure that enough funds are available to execute it. As of October 2016, the military construction funds had not been authorized by Congress for the third phase of the JIAC construction project. According to DOD officials, construction is not scheduled to begin until fall of 2017, and the contract has not yet been awarded. Further, the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide states that regardless of whether changes to the program result from a major contract modification or an overtarget budget, the cost estimate should be regularly updated to reflect all changes. This is also a requirement outlined in OMB's Capital Programming Guide. The purpose of updating the cost estimate is to check its accuracy, defend the estimate over time, and archive cost and technical data for use in future estimates. After the internal agency and congressional budgets are prepared and submitted, it is imperative that cost estimators continue to monitor the program to determine whether the preliminary information and assumptions remain relevant and accurate. Keeping the estimate updated gives decision makers accurate information for assessing alternative decisions. Cost estimates must also be updated whenever requirements change, and the results should be reconciled and recorded against the old estimate baseline. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOD's implementation of our recommendation to update future JIAC cost estimates using the best practices identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide would assist in ensuring that decision makers have complete and reliable information about costs associated with the JIAC consolidation and as the third phase of the JIAC project is authorized. Implementing our recommendation would also ensure that DOD develops a reliable historical record for the cost of the JIAC that can be used to estimate other similar projects in the future. As of June 2017, the agency had not taken any action to implement this recommendation. As of July 2018, a senior DOD official said that DOD is developing a new analysis of alternatives (AOA) for JIAC consolidation and will use, as appropriate, our AOA best practices. Those best practices include several focused on cost estimation. We have requested information on the extent to which the AOA team will use best practices for cost estimating to update the JIAC consolidation cost estimate. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. As of September 2019, a senior DOD official said that DOD's prior non-concur with our recommendation is still valid for the reasons mentioned above.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's awareness of how much O&M funding the department uses for construction projects to support contingency operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to track the universe and cost of ongoing and future contingency construction projects that are funded from O&M appropriations under section 2805 of Title 10, U.S. Code (unspecified minor military construction authority).

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's ability to quickly fund contingency construction projects that are not ideally suited to the current standard Military Construction and Operation and Maintenance processes and time frames and reduce reliance on funding approaches that pose risks regarding the appropriate use of funding, negative operational impacts, and unnecessary duplication, DOD should evaluate and improve the use of existing processes and authorities to the extent possible; determine whether additional authorities are needed to support urgent construction needs; and revise existing departmental processes or seek additional authorities, as appropriate.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to help ensure that DOD limits demands on available resources to those necessary to meet contingency construction project requirements and communicates those requirements effectively, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, direct the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a control activity for documenting level-of-construction determinations before the Army Corps of Engineers designs the projects and estimates their costs.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to ensure that DOD avoids constructing facilities that may be unneeded to support U.S. forces and to comprehensively document the results of its reviews of ongoing construction projects when changes in mission requirements occur, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Commander of CENTCOM to develop implementing guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve the awareness of the combatant and service component commands' responsibilities to record and share lessons learned and to ensure that important contingency-construction-related lessons are recorded, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Commander of CENTCOM to revise Central Command Regulation 415-1 or issue other guidance as appropriate to specifically detail the role of the combatant command and service component commands in recording contingency construction lessons learned from the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the Joint Lessons Learned Information System.

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.

Recommendation: In light of potential concerns regarding the appropriate use of funding raised by several of the examples identified in this report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to review these and, as appropriate, other construction projects in the contingency environment presenting similar circumstances to ensure that funds were properly used.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, for future ship construction contracts, to determine whether or not a warranty as provided in the FAR, provides value and document the costs, benefits, and other factors used to make this decision. To inform this determination, the Navy should begin differentiating the government's and shipbuilder's responsibility for defects and track the costs to correct all defects after ship delivery.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation in February 2016 by committing to study policy changes with regard to warranties, but disagreed that additional cost data were needed to inform these decisions, and questioned whether warranties are suitable for ship acquisitions. In February 2017, a Navy-funded study found that the Navy had no policy to collect data, and that the little data available were not useful for determining when warranties are suitable. In response to the study, the Navy agreed that, by December 2017, it would make some policy and contractual changes to collect data, but it continued to maintain that warranties are likely not suitable for ship contracts. In January 2018, the Navy issued guidance to help contracting officers determine when and how to use a warranty or guarantee, but the Navy has collected only one warranty cost proposal from one shipbuilder for a contract for a single ship and, going forward, Navy officials stated that they do not have plans to systematically collect such data. In August 2019, we recommended in GAO-19-512 that the Navy collect warranty pricing on its new class of frigates, as the Navy initially did not include warranty pricing as part of its request for proposals for the ship class. However, as of August 2020, the Navy has not made meaningful efforts to gain pricing data for warranties and has stated that the department does not plan to take any further action. To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy needs to collect additional data in order to determine cases in which warranties could contribute to improvements in the cost and quality of Navy ships.