Recommendation: The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration should ensure the Office of Acquisition and Grants, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer, revises relevant guidance to identify the role of contracting officials in the Agile software development process.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The Social Security Administration agreed with the recommendation but has not yet taken actions to implement it.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
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 include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 2)

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 Director of DLA should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
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 take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 5)

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 Director of DLA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
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 take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 9)

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 SBA Administrator should ensure Commercial Market Representatives clearly and consistently document compliance reviews and maintain these records. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Small Business Administration
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 Homeland Security should direct the DHS Chief Procurement Officer to, in coordination with the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management, develop a risk-based approach for reviewing service requirements—through the Procurement Strategy Roadmap or other means—to ensure proposed service requirements are clearly defined and reviewed before planning how they are to be procured. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS disagreed with our recommendation, preferring to maintain the status quo in its policy and procedures. However, by doing so, DHS is missing important opportunities to prevent negative acquisition outcomes and the potential for wasted resources. In its response, DHS noted its processes for major acquisitions, however, DHS service programs and contracts did not rise to the level of being classified a major service acquisition.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the DHS Chief Procurement Officer to document the factors the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer considers when waiving procurement actions from its Procurement Strategy Roadmap to ensure it is consistently considering potential acquisition risks in its planning—including those specific to services. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation, maintaining that the factors considered when waiving a Procurement Strategy Roadmap are not static. We believe, however, that documenting the factors considered will help ensure that the decisions to waive the Procurement Strategy Roadmaps are made consistently, transparently, and help maintain institutional knowledge.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the DHS Chief Procurement Officer to update the Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions Analysis to require the identification of special interest functions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will update the Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions Analysis job aid to require the identification of a special interest function when applicable.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the DHS Chief Procurement Officer to update the Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions Analysis to provide guidance for analyzing, documenting, and updating the federal workforce needed to perform or oversee service contracts requiring heightened management attention. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation maintaining that the components are certifying that they have sufficient internal capacity or federal employees available for oversight within the Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions Analysis. We continue to believe, however, that without guidance, each component is making its own determination about which factors to consider, and DHS does not know how or whether the components are considering the federal workforce available to oversee service contracts in need of heightened management attention, or what steps, if any, the components are taking to mitigate risks if there are not enough federal personnel available to oversee the contracts after award.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the DHS Chief Procurement Officer to develop guidance identifying oversight tasks or safeguards personnel can perform, when needed, to mitigate the risk associated with contracts containing closely associated with inherently governmental functions, special interest functions, or critical functions. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will develop guidance that identifies oversight tasks or safeguards that personnel can perform, when needed, to mitigate the risk associated with contracts containing closely associated with inherently governmental, special interest, or critical functions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the DHS Chief Financial Officer to work with Congress to identify information to include in its annual congressional budget justifications to provide greater transparency into requested and actual service requirement costs, particularly for those services requiring heightened management attention. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation stating that its annual Congressional Budget Justification already contains substantial service contract information. We maintain, however, that the service contract information currently included limits visibility for both DHS and Congress into requested and actual service requirements costs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC puts controls in place to better ensure the completeness of vendor FSS sales reporting. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that it has taken steps to better ensure the completeness of vendor FSS sales reporting, including by conducting more active monitoring of the sales data submitted by vendors. These steps are ongoing, but NAC has reported a decrease in the number of FSS contractors not reporting sales.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC assesses data on the participation of and items and services offered by veteran-owned small businesses in NAC's FSS program, in order to determine whether their program is meeting the needs of VHA contracting officers who use it given the Veterans First requirements they must meet. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has conducted additional outreach to veteran-owned small businesses regarding FSS participation, and plans to conduct analysis of these businesses' participation in FSS by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC directs the FSS Director to develop a mechanism to consistently obtain and analyze VHA user feedback on the FSS program. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has taken several actions to more consistently obtain VHA user feedback on the FSS program, including holding meetings with each VHA regional contracting office and participating in VHA integrated project teams and other recurring meetings. We have requested documentation of these activities, but VA has yet to provide it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC provides FSS contracting staff with comprehensive FSS guidance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and NAC reported in August 2020 that it has taken steps to make existing guidance on the FSS program more accessible to FSS contracting staff. We have requested more documentation from VA to confirm that the guidance is comprehensive.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC develops an FSS-specific training program to include essential skills and processes to meet ongoing training needs for new and existing contracting staff. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and NAC reported in August 2020 that it has implemented additional introductory training for new FSS contracting staff, as well as quarterly training events for all FSS contracting staff. We have requested additional documentation from VA on the content of the quarterly training.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should work with the Secretary of VA to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining the roles and responsibilities of GSA and NAC for collaborating under GSA's delegation of authority to VA for the healthcare-related Federal Supply Schedules, including the processes through which the two organizations will coordinate and share useful tools and practices. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it has met with VA and agreed to develop an interagency memorandum of understanding by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should work with the Administrator of GSA to develop a memorandum of understanding outlining the roles and responsibilities of GSA and NAC in collaborating under GSA's delegation of authority to VA for the healthcare-related Federal Supply Schedules, including the processes through which the two organizations will coordinate and share useful tools and practices. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it has met with VA and agreed to develop an interagency memorandum of understanding by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should take steps to document its delegation of authority for the healthcare-related Federal Supply Schedules to VA. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it is working to develop updated delegation of authority and will provide further details by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's NAC assesses the appropriateness of NAC's current timeliness goals for FSS contract awards and takes steps to comprehensively identify and address barriers to achieving them. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has confirmed that existing timeliness goals are appropriate, and that NAC officials meet on a quarterly basis to discuss barriers to meeting these goals. We have requested more detail from NAC on the barriers they have identified and steps they are taking to address them so that we can assess whether they are comprehensive.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Associate Executive Director of VA's National Acquisition Center takes measures to ensure greater efficiency in the offer-intake process, such as providing additional guidance for vendors or by adopting a system that includes checks for completeness of required vendor documentation. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has developed a checklist for assessing the completeness of submitted offers, and that new offers are currently processed in an average of two days. NAC is considering adoption of an automated offer intake system. We have requested additional details from NAC on the recent average offer processing time.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should take steps to assess duplication between VA's FSS and MSPV programs, to determine if this duplication is necessary or if efficiencies can be gained. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA stated that it is analyzing duplication of contracting across the department as part of its Category Management efforts, and expects to complete an internal report on this issue in early 2021.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration should expand its outreach as appropriate to obtain feedback from lessors that are representative of its entire lease portfolio. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In its 180-day letter to the congressional clients dated March 25, 2020, GSA stated that it would provide additional documentation of invitations to its industry outreach efforts. We will review this information when it is available.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration should, for future outreach efforts, document and assess lessors' feedback about the leasing process. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In its 180-day letter to the congressional clients dated March 25, 2020, GSA stated that it would document and assess the feedback received from lessors during its outreach efforts. We will review this information when it is available.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration should evaluate whether the simplified lease model is achieving its intended results. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In its 180-day letter to the congressional clients dated March 25, 2020, GSA stated that it would evaluate its simplified lease model and provide documentation of the evaluation's methodology, findings, and recommendations. We will review information related to this evaluation when it is available.

Recommendation: The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD[C]) should include an assessment of risks related to contractor ownership as part of its ongoing efforts to plan and conduct a department-wide fraud risk assessment. As part of this assessment, consistent with leading practices, DOD should involve relevant stakeholders with knowledge of emerging risks and use this information to help inform other types of risk assessments across the department, including for national security concerns. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should report information on all professional SSCs to which funds were obligated during the fiscal year in its annual congressional budget justification materials. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with our recommendation and agreed to update its methodology for the fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials in an effort to ensure that contracts are counted accurately. Based on our review of the contracts listed in the budget justification materials, NNSA inappropriately excluded six contracts from its fiscal year 2021 congressional budget justification reporting. GAO is following up with NNSA officials to determine why these contracts were excluded.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should collect and report all required data regarding the number of FTE contractor personnel employed under an SSC for more than 2 years. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred in principle with the recommendation and planned to meet with congressional staff to discuss ways to further enhance the reported data before the 2021 budget materials were prepared. NNSA provided additional information in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification explaining that it did not have access to the information needed to report information to report required data regarding the number of FTE contractor personnel employed under an support service contract for more than 2 years. We will continue to follow-up on NNSA's progress in collecting and reporting the required data.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should report in NNSA's annual congressional budget justification materials the program appropriations account—Weapons Activities or Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation—used to fund each SSC and total the amounts obligated by appropriations account. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation and included in the fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials additional information on the fund value and description in the table of support service contracts. However, NNSA did not total the amounts for each appropriation account. As a result, information on the total amounts of each appropriation account is not as transparent as it could be to assist Congress for planning purposes. GAO is following up with agency officials to identify any additional actions planned to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should take steps to ensure that contracting officers document—in the required determination form or elsewhere in the contract file—information on the steps that the contracting officers plan to take to oversee SSCs that NNSA has determined to be at high risk of including inherently governmental functions. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of this report, NNSA stated that it considers the recommendation closed based on processes already in place, as well as the complementary activities discussed in response to our sixth recommendation. We continue to believe that documenting planned oversight activities in the contract files is important to ensure that planned oversight is consistent throughout the duration of the contract. We will continue to monitor NNSA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should develop a process to verify that contracting officers are carrying out the steps identified to oversee contracts at risk of including inherently governmental functions throughout the term of the contract. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NNSA generally agreed with the recommendation. NNSA stated that, among other things, it will review and revise, as necessary, the designation letters for contractor officers' representatives to ensure they clearly address the expectations for daily operational awareness and monitoring for risks associated with high-risk contracts, including those involving activities closely associated with inherently governmental functions. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment designates an accountable official responsible for (a) developing job specialty descriptions to help identify non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions; and (b) establishing a schedule to identify these personnel. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any necessary actions to implement it. In its concurrence, DOD noted that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) would develop and provide the guidance and job specialty descriptions for DOD components to use for identifying acquisition and non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions. DOD also noted that the Director of Human Capital Initiatives has deployed an enterprise-wide coding capability for components to use in identifying acquisition and non-acquisition civilians across DOD. A DOD official stated that during 2020, both OSD and the Office of Human Capital Initiatives have developed reports that discuss issues related to the identification and training of non-acquisition personnel, including those supporting services acquisitions. This official noted that both of these reports are going through the coordination and staffing process and have not been issued. Additionally, DOD has not yet designated an accountable official responsible for efforts to help identify non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Component Acquisition Executives provide non-acquisition personnel training needs to the Defense Acquisition University as part of the annual planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, a DOD official stated that DOD is planning a revision to its instruction related to the education and training of DOD's acquisition workforce. The official said the revision is intended to help define the acquisition and non-acquisition workforces and the responsibilities for their respective training needs, among other things. However, the revision is in the planning stages and not be expected to be completed until the end of 2021. As a result, DOD is still not ensuring that Component Acquisition Executives provide non-acquisition personnel training needs to the Defense Acquisition University.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of ETA should develop, document, and implement a comprehensive strategy that (1) accounts for Job Corps' projected workload requirements and (2) considers its acquisition workforce needs—including the number of staff, skills, and other supports necessary to plan, award, and monitor Job Corps center contracts—to enable it to effectively plan for and competitively award future Job Corps center contracts. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration
Status: Open

Comments: DOL stated that it will develop, document, and implement a comprehensive strategy that accounts for Job Corps' projected workload requirements and considers its acquisition workforce needs. DOL noted that it has released a new procurement plan which reflects its decision to re-procure 28 Job Corps centers prior to the final option year of their contract. DOL said that this action would result in each region having no more than five procurements each year, which it considers a manageable procurement workload for its current staffing level. We will consider closing the recommendation when such a comprehensive strategy is implemented.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Acting Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment to ensure it conducts a comprehensive assessment of the effect that its contract financing and profit policies have on the defense industry and update that assessment on a recurring basis. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. The Department stated that it would seek fiscal year 2020 funds to contract a study on DOD contract financing policies and their effect on the defense industry. In September 2020, DOD stated that this action would be completed by December 31, 2021. The first phase of the report is estimated to be completed September 30, 2021. The department secured funds to complete the study and a contract was awarded on April 23, 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, should jointly revisit and assess the extent to which the criteria in the 2018 NIA code Memorandum of Agreement, including criteria for closing NIA codes, meet long-term visibility needs for high visibility events and account for the needs of users, such as FEMA, other agencies, and the Congress. At a minimum, the agreement should include criteria that take into account the roles of the federal agencies involved in response and recovery and provide a process that ensures consistent consideration and implementation of the criteria. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation and the need to regularly review the memorandum of agreement (MOA) and make revisions as applicable. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to the recommendation. In August 2019, GSA, DHS, and DOD revised the agreement, but the revisions did not fully address the recommendation. The revisions included a change to one criterion for closing National Interest Action (NIA) codes--adding consistent decline in contract actions as a criterion and removing the criterion that relied on alternative tracking methods at agencies. However, the revisions to the MOA did not include changes that provide a process to ensure consistent implementation of criteria, or address long-term visibility needs, or account for the needs of users. In July 2020, a DHS official stated that DOD and DHS had conducted an annual review of the MOA and determined no changes were necessary, and that DOD and DHS would consider potential updates to the MOA during their next annual review. GSA officials clarified that, in terms of updating the MOA, GSA is the servicing agency and does not have the authority to determine the criteria for establishing, extending, or end-dating NIA codes. GSA officials stated, and DHS officials agreed, that DHS and DOD determine the criteria for whether a NIA code needs to be established, extended, or end-dated.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy should provide additional clarification on how contracting officers should determine whether offerors reside or primarily do business in a disaster area for the purposes of a local area set-aside contract. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy concurred with this recommendation. In September 2019, officials identified the Emergency Acquisition Guide as a vehicle to address this recommendation. The Emergency Acquisition Guide, last updated in 2011, is intended to assist the federal contracting community with planning and carrying out procurement activities during contingency events. However, officials did not provide details on how this recommendation would be incorporated or provide time frames for when the guide would be updated. As of July 2020, Office of Federal Procurement Policy staff had not provided an update on implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a formal process to solicit input from officials directly involved in the agency's response and recovery following a disaster and to share that input with the Emergency Support Function Leadership Group. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The US Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation. In its agency response, the Coast Guard stated that it was reviewing its current policies and processes to update its After Action Report Policy or to identify and implement other policy improvements. As of July 2020, these actions were still in progress.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should take the lead to work together with the Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to revise the mission assignment policy and related guidance to better incorporate consideration of contracting needs, such as demobilization, and to ensure clear communication of coordination responsibilities related to contracting. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concurred with the recommendation. In its response, FEMA stated it would work with its federal partners and develop mission assignment project management tools and training. In addition, FEMA is planning to develop a Mission Assignment Project Manager Guide to provide guidance to address the issues GAO identified. As of July 2020, FEMA indicated it would develop a new project plan and timeline for completing these actions in the winter of 2020.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should assess its workforce needs—including staffing levels, mission needs, and skill gaps—for contracting staff, to include regional offices and DART; and develop a plan, including timelines, to address any gaps. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concurred with this recommendation. In its official response, FEMA stated it would take actions to address this recommendation, including hiring contractor support and additional Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees. As of August 2020, these actions were still in progress. FEMA officials indicated that its workforce assessment was expected to be complete in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Senior Procurement Executive for the Department of the Army should review the contracts we identified as being awarded to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR § 52.209-11 and (1) determine whether the contracting officer was required to consider the contractor's reported tax debt; if so, (2) determine the reasons controls to identify and refer these contractors to the SDO before contract award did not operate effectively; and (3) design or modify controls to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: Army provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-11. We are assessing Army's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Procurement Executive for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should review the contracts we identified as being awarded to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR § 52.209-11 and (1) determine whether the contracting officer was required to consider the contractor's reported tax debt; if so, (2) determine the reasons controls to identify and refer these contractors to the SDO before contract award did not operate effectively; and (3) design or modify controls to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-11. We are assessing HHS's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Procurement Executive for the Department of the Army should review the contracts we identified as being awarded to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR § 52.209-5. Specifically, the Senior Procurement Executive should determine whether each contract value was expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold when the solicitation was issued and, if so, (1) determine the reasons controls to identify and notify the SDO of these contractors before contract award did not operate effectively and (2) design or modify controls to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: Army provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing Army's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Procurement Executive for the Department of Energy should review the contracts we identified as being awarded to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR § 52.209-5. Specifically, the Senior Procurement Executive should determine whether each contract value was expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold when the solicitation was issued and, if so, (1) determine the reasons controls to identify and notify the SDO of these contractors before contract award did not operate effectively and (2) design or modify controls to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing the DOE's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Procurement Executive for HHS should review the contracts we identified as being awarded to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR § 52.209-5. Specifically, the Senior Procurement Executive should determine whether each contract value was expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold when the solicitation was issued and, if so, (1) determine the reasons controls to identify and notify the SDO of these contractors before contract award did not operate effectively and (2) design or modify controls to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing HHS's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration should coordinate with the appropriate System for Award Management users, such as agency procurement officials, to identify potential updates to facilitate contracting officers' identification of contractors that report qualifying federal tax debt under the § 52.209-11 representation and § 52.209-5 certification. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and stated it would work with the procurement community to identify potential approaches to draw contracting officers' attention to qualifying federal tax debt information reported by contractors is the System for Award Management under the FAR ? 52.209-5 certification and ? 52.209-11 representation. We will assess these actions after they have been completed.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of the IRS should evaluate options to obtain comprehensive contract payment data above the existing Federal Procurement Data System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG) reporting threshold of $10,000, including assessing the costs and benefits of changing the current threshold for contracts that agencies are required to report to the IRS through Form 8596 information returns to be consistent with the existing reporting threshold for FPDS-NG, determine whether regulatory revisions are necessary, and change the reporting threshold, if appropriate. (Recommendation 12)

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

Comments: IRS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it is reviewing the potential benefits and costs that would result from implementing this recommendation. We will assess these actions after they have been completed.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should clearly define—in guidance or other documents—which subcontracts should be audited, how an audit is defined, and how to meet subcontract audit requirements if Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct the audit.(Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report, DOE partially concurred with the recommendation, but stated that there is no government-wide requirement that defines an audit or prescribes the auditing of subcontracts. According to officials, DOE reviewed existing regulations, guidance, and contract provisions on audit requirements and determined that a need exists for additional guidance or contract provisions on audits for major contracts. As of June 2020, DOE was working with the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council to recommend a government-wide requirement to define audit and prescribe when to obtain audits of subcontracts. Additionally, DOE included in its Acquisition Guide information on audit options when the Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct an audit.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require local officials to independently review subcontractor ownership information as part of DOE consent reviews and assess potential conflicts of interest to ensure contractors are mitigating them. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE did not concur with our recommendation; instead, they plan to issue guidance emphasizing the importance of contracting officers reviewing contractors' disclosing and dealing with issues created by close working relationships, conflicts of interest, or ownership affiliations between prime and subcontractor. We have identified complex relationships among DOE contractors and subcontractors that were not documented by DOE, as well as incidents involving subcontractors related to conflicts of interest that were not disclosed to DOE. We noted that DOE officials--including those in local offices--have access to several databases and other sources of information that would allow them to independently verify ownership information that could allow the local offices to identify potential conflicts of interest that were not disclosed. In July 2020, DOE issued guidance summarizing and reiterating existing regulations, policy and procedures that require DOE contracting officers to perform independent analyses when reviewing subcontract consent packages, contractor purchasing systems, and potential organizational conflicts of interest. However, this is the same as previous guidance and it does not include direction to review subcontractor ownership information.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require contracting officers to include assessments of the contractors' management of subcontractors as part of annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans, as appropriate. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with the recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and determine if additional guidance is needed to conduct an assessment of the contractors' management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans. As of June 2020, DOE officials said they have reviewed existing federal and departmental policies, procedures, and available tools and determined sufficient guidance exists for contracting officers to make informed decisions on whether to include contractor management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of a specific contract. DOE's Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan template provides a subcontractor management evaluation factor for use by contracting officers who have determined it is appropriate for their contracts. Although we recognize the value in deferring to contracting officers to determine whether the factor is appropriate based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of the contract, we continue to believe that DOE should place additional emphasis on the contractors' oversight of subcontracts by assessing the contractors on this factor.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Director, DCMA, in collaboration with the Director, DCAA, develop a mechanism to monitor and assess whether contractor business systems reviews are being completed in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Contract Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: DCMA concurred with our recommendation and the department notified us in March 2019 that collaboration between DCMA and DCAA to develop a mechanism to increase oversight and improve management of contractor business system audits and determinations had begun. In September 2019, DCMA and DCAA provided lists of the business system reviews planned to be conducted during fiscal year 2020, showing that the data needed for oversight of all CBS reviews is available between the two agencies. Further, an April 2019 DCMA memorandum indicated that DCAA data on planned reviews for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 had been transferred to DCMA and that administrate contracting officers were to conduct risk assessments to identify additional reviews for DCAA to complete in the future. In August 2020, DCMA and DCAA specified the sources of the data provided earlier; DCAA data is collected through its strategic workload and resource initiative and inputted into the DCAA Management Information System while DCMA business system review data continues to be maintained by the functional offices responsible for those reviews. Both agencies stated that progress against planned reviews is tracked and status is reported to management at regular intervals. DCMA also noted a series of new tools designed to enhance surveillance of contractor business systems and implementation of corrective actions. These steps indicate progress towards increased insight into both the completion CBS review and the follow-up that occurs afterward. However It remains unclear to what extent data sharing between DCAA and DCMA to support CBS review planning has been formalized and will continue or the extent to which DCMA headquarters uses this data to assess implementation of its policies for the conduct of CBS reviews.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: (1) To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and (2) To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within OMB concurred with our recommendation, noting that it plans to coordinate with federal agencies on the extent to which they have developed training and guidance. Based on this information, OFPP will work with agencies to determine the most appropriate course of action to address gaps, if any. As of August 2020, OFPP stated that it had not taken any additional actions to implement the recommendation because it is currently focused on implementing Executive Order 13881 "Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products and Materials".

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clarify existing guidance, or provide training or other instruction, to help contracting officials: (1) Address the applicability of the Buy American Act requirements and provide instruction on how to implement the requirements, including in any training developed to implement the Veterans First policy; (2) Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; and (3) Identify sources of information available for determining products' origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred and has since taken action to address some of our three-part recommendation. For example, VA revised its "Procurement Policy Memorandum 2017-12", on April 9, 2019, to better clarify its existing Buy American Act guidance and highlight key factors contracting staff should consider when determining the applicability of Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. Additionally, in October 2019, VA provided GAO briefing slides for a new training to be offered at the agency's acquisition academy that includes specific instruction pertaining to the use of Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. However, VA has yet to address our recommendation that the agency clarify guidance or provide training to help contracting officers identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information. We plan to keep this recommendation open until VA implements guidance or training of this nature and we are able to assess the extent to which it fully addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide guidance, training, or other instruction to help contracting officials: (1) Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; (2) Document determinations of the use of Buy American exceptions for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained; and (3) Identify sources of information available for determining products' origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and has taken steps to implement it. HHS issued a memorandum in February 2019 requiring all contracting officers as part of their continuous learning program to complete the Buy American Statute course, FAC063, offered by the Federal Acquisition Institute. As of February 2020, about 90 percent of contracting officials had taken the required training. However, due to its COVID-19 Pandemic response activities, HHS stated that all of its contracting officials had not completed the training as intended. HHS also developed checklists and guidance related to the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act. We plan to keep this recommendation open until HHS completes its training initiative.

Recommendation: FEMA's Administrator should update the strategy identified in its 2007 Advance Contracting of Goods and Services Report to Congress to clearly define the objectives of advance contracts, how they contribute to FEMA's disaster response operations, and whether and how they should be prioritized in relation to new post-disaster contract awards. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: FEMA agreed with this recommendation. In February 2020, FEMA updated its Disaster Contracting Desk Guide to more clearly identify what advance contracts are and how they should be used in relation to post-disaster contracts. Additionally, in July 2020, FEMA officials stated that they had initiated efforts to draft an advance contract strategy as part of FEMA's policy development process. According to FEMA officials, the directive will outline an agency-wide process for identifying and establishing advance contracts, and encourage the maximum use of advance contracts. The officials anticipate completing the directive by January 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting , addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding procurement for goods that are predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life as revisions to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) are considered. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. The guidance does not clarify what goods qualify as being predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life. It states contracting officers should check with the requiring activity to make this determination. However, since there is no clear definition of these terms, requiring activities will not have any better insight how to apply this criterion than contracting officers. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how these terms should apply to goods..

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding full life-cycle costs, including for operations and support as revisions to the DFARS are considered. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. This guidance states it is up to the requiring activity to document that the lowest price reflects the full life cycle costs. However, through our work it was unclear to those we interviewed how to determine a full life cycle costs for services. The guidance cites DoD Instruction 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Material Management Policy for further guidance on how to determine life cycle costs for services. This policy does not clarify how life cycle costs should be applied to services. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how this requirement should be implemented by contracting officers as the guidance issued does not do this.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that VA's Director of the Office of Acquisition and Logistics, in consultation with VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, takes measures to ensure that VA contracting staff adhere to the requirements for documenting the required Vendor Information Pages searches in contract files. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that it was beginning a process to update its contracting system to automate the inclusion of documentation of Vendor Information Pages searches in contract files. VA is also now tracking compliance rates. VA plans to provide GAO an update in fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Director of the Office of Acquisition and Logistics conducts a fraud risk assessment for the Veterans First program. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA provided GAO with a draft fraud risk assessment, and also reported that it is developing measures to mitigate identified risks. VA has not yet provided a date by which it plans to finalize its risk assessment and risk mitigation measures.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Director of the Office of Acquisition and Logistics directs the Risk Management and Compliance Service to share, through guidance, training, or other methods, subcontracting limitation risks and monitoring practices with contracting officers and their management. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA provided draft lists of subcontracting limitations risks, as well as draft monitoring guidance and tools. After these items are finalized, VA plans to post them on a portal accessible to all VA contracting staff, but has yet to provide a date by which it expects to take this step.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should: assess why reverse auctions that are conducted using existing contract vehicles have only one bidder at higher rates than reverse auctions conducted on the open market; determine what factors indicate that conducting reverse auctions is appropriate when using existing contract vehicles; and provide this information to contracting officials so that they can consider it when developing their acquisition strategies.(Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials told us that they had reviewed data on reverse auctions to determine a root cause of single bidders, and describing the factors that indicate that conducting a reverse auction are appropriate. However, they had not yet provided this information to contracting officials as of July 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should: document and provide information to contracting officials that describes available reverse auction providers and platforms, and any associated fee structures; and provide guidance, as appropriate, to contracting officials to ensure that they compare the options that are available to them when considering whether to use reverse auctions. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials stated that memorandum of understanding with reverse auction providers, including fee information, are distributed to contracting officials. However, as of August 2020, they had not provided us with evidence that they had distributed a memorandum related to the primary reverse auction provider currently used by the Navy.

Recommendation: To help foster strategic decision making and improvements in the acquisition of services, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should, as part of its effort to update the January 2016 instruction, reassess the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and organizational placement of key leadership positions, including functional domain experts, senior services managers, and component level leads.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In July 2018, DOD officials told us that they planned to fully implement this recommendation in the revised instruction once it was issued. In January 2020, DOD issued an updated instruction that, among other things, revised elements of the management structure. We plan to begin work later in 2020 that will assess whether the changes reflected in the January 2020 instruction address the issues we identified.

Recommendation: To help foster strategic decision making and improvements in the acquisition of services, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should, as part of its effort to update the January 2016 instruction, clarify the purpose and timing of the Services Requirements Review Board process to better align it with DOD's programming and budgeting processes.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In July 2018, DOD officials told us that they planned to fully implement this recommendation in the revised instruction once it was issued. In January 2020, DOD issued an updated instruction that, among other things, revised elements of the Services Requirements Review Board process. We plan to begin work later in 2020 that will assess whether the changes reflected in the January 2020 instruction address the issues we identified.

Recommendation: To ensure that IGCEs contain key information consistent with good cost estimating practices, the Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor should revise or clarify guidance to require that IGCEs document data sources, methodology, and assumptions, and take steps to help ensure that guidance is followed by, for example, providing training or issuing reminders to officials to include this information when developing IGCEs.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will revise guidance on independent government cost estimates. As of September 2020, despite numerous requests, we still have not received any information on steps HHS has taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that IGCEs are optimized as a tool in the procurement planning process, the Secretaries of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor should take steps to ensure that, when appropriate, contracting staff document differences between IGCE and final contract award value in the contract file.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will revise guidance on independent government cost estimates. As of September 2020, despite numerous requests, we still have not received any information on steps HHS has taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that contracting officers have clear and effective policies as soon as possible, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the OAL to identify measures to expedite the revision of the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR), which has been ongoing for many years, and the issuance of the VA Acquisition Manual.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has made progress in finalizing the update to its acquisition regulations and manual. In August 2020, VA reported that 31 of the 41 parts in its new acquisition regulations had been issued as draft or final rules. The remainder are at an earlier stage of the rulemaking process. VA also stated that it remains on track to release the final VA Acquisition Regulations in April 2021.

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.

Recommendation: To gain visibility and enable efficient management on the use of bridge contracts in federal agencies, the Administrator of OFPP should take appropriate steps to develop a standardized definition for bridge contracts and incorporate it as appropriate into relevant FAR sections.

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

Comments: Staff from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) had previously told us that OFPP would be convening the FAR Council to discuss regulatory action after it completes the development of management guidance. In January 2020, OFPP staff stated that they are reviewing the extent to which this guidance is necessary moving forward, and noted that there is no estimated timeframe for completion of this review. However, in August 2020, OFPP staff said that in light of the focus on COVID and related priorities, OFPP does not have immediate plans to pursue guidance on bridge contracting at this time. OFPP staff noted that OFPP continues to work with agencies to help them effectively leverage acquisition flexibilities that reduce Procurement Acquisition Lead Times to reduce the need for bridge contracts. We continue to believe these actions are important to help ensure agencies do not continue to use these noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time, thereby risking paying more than they should for goods and services .

Recommendation: To gain visibility and enable efficient management on the use of bridge contracts in federal agencies, the Administrator of OFPP should, as an interim measure, until the FAR is amended, provide guidance to agencies on (1) a definition of bridge contracts, with consideration of contract extensions as well as stand-alone bridge contracts; and (2) suggestions for agencies to track and manage their use of these contracts, such as identifying a contract as a bridge in a Justification and Approval (J&A) when it meets the definition, and listing the history of previous extensions and stand-alone bridge contracts back to the predecessor contract in the J&A.

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

Comments: OMB staff had previously told us that they had drafted guidance, which included a definition for bridge contracts, and that it was under review. In January 2020, OMB staff stated that they are reviewing the extent to which this guidance is necessary moving forward and noted that there is no estimated timeframe for completion of this review. However, in August 2020, OFPP staff said that in light of the focus on COVID and related priorities, OFPP does not have immediate plans to pursue guidance on bridge contracting at this time. OFPP staff noted that OFPP continues to work with agencies to help them effectively leverage acquisition flexibilities that reduce Procurement Acquisition Lead Times to reduce the need for bridge contracts. We continue to believe these actions are important to help ensure agencies do not continue to use these noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time, thereby risking paying more than they should for goods and services.

Recommendation: To help ensure contracting officers carry out the requirements of Section 802, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Administrator of USAID should revise the processes and guidance governing management reviews of procurements to ensure that such reviews assess whether contracting officers are complying with the provisions of Section 802.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation. Following a May 2015 Federal Acquisition Regulation update to reflect the requirements of Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy drafted supplementary information for an update of the agency's Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) that was considered and rejected by Defense Acquisition Regulation Council. In July 2019, the Office of Defense Pricing and Contracting reported that new PGI guidance would be drafted that will require management reviews to consider compliance with Section 802 requirements included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. As of August 2020, we have been unable to determine the status of this guidance.

Recommendation: To help mitigate confusion about the use of reverse auctions in federal acquisitions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should take steps to amend the FAR to address agencies' use of reverse auctions.

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, OMB generally concurred with this recommendation. The FAR Council members issued a timetable in Spring 2020 for the proposed regulatory changes to address the use of reverse auctions in response to GAO's recommendations and 2015 guidance released by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The notice of proposed rulemaking was planned for August 2020. As of August 10, 2020, the notice of proposed rulemaking had not been published. OMB officials did not provide a revised date when they planned to publish the notice.