Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the W87-1 program to ensure consistent, reliable, and objective assessments of remaining feature and component design decisions in Phase 6.2 by developing study plans for remaining design studies consistent with the guidelines for such plans in NNSA's AOA procedure, including documenting and justifying deviations from best practices. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security 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 NNSA Administrator should direct the Office of Defense Programs to revise its program execution instruction to require that design studies for warhead life extension and replacement programs follow AOA best practices, such as by having a study plan, or to justify and document deviations from best practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security 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 NNSA Administrator should direct the Office of Defense Programs' plutonium program office to ensure that the integrated master schedule in development for pit production meets NIMS standards, consistent with best practices for schedule development. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security 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 NNSA Administrator should direct the W87-1 program to prioritize the development and documentation of a risk mitigation strategy to address the risk that pit production may be insufficient to meet W87-1 production needs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security 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 Army should direct the MPF program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the OMFV program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the OMFV program to inform requirements by conducting systems engineering reviews at key decision points consistent with our leading practices for acquisition, as the program office finalizes its acquisition approach. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to perform system and design reviews to inform the development of final requirements. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should require the W80-4 program, when it issues its baseline cost report prior to entry into phase 6.4, to adopt a date for the delivery of a first production unit, and dates for other key program milestones, based on the program's current schedule risk analysis, or document its justification for adopting alternative schedules and milestones based on other factors. If necessary, the Administrator should alert the Secretary of Energy to the need to engage in the extension or notification processes identified in statute for adopting a first production unit delivery date after September 2025. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security 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 NNSA Administrator should revise the Program Execution Instruction or other related directives to require future LEPs and nuclear weapon modernization programs of similar complexity, when they issue a WDCR or baseline cost report, to establish program schedules and key milestone dates (including the FPU delivery date) on the basis of a formal schedule risk analysis that aligns with best practices, or document the justification for any decision to adopt alternative schedules and milestones based on other factors. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security 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 Director, MDA, should ensure an independent assessment is conducted of the agency's process for developing and executing its annual BMDS flight test plan. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation stating that MDA will conduct an independent assessment as recommended.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should establish procedures requiring the military departments to collect and share findings from their peer reviews of MDAP contracting approaches—including choice of contract type—such as by updating the existing online compendium of best practices and lessons learned as they complete their reviews.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation, but as of August 2020 has not taken any action to implement it.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to provide information that is similar to that which is statutorily required after the milestone C review to Congress ahead of the milestone C review (full-rate production decision). This submission should include an evaluation of the production risks associated with critical production processes that are not in control, reliability and maintainability (R&M) targets that are not met, and supplier readiness—particularly for those replacing Turkish suppliers, along with the steps it is taking to address those risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, citing updates the F-35 program office provides to oversight entities within DOD. We maintain that the program office should provide these same updates to Congress as well. Without a substantive assessment highlighting specific production risks, as well as the steps DOD will take to mitigate them, Congress may not have key insights into the risks that remain with the program and to the overall effort to deliver F-35s to the warfighter. DOD has agreed to keep the Congress apprised of these matters in its quarterly briefings to the defense committees.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to establish a Block 4 cost estimate baseline that includes all Block 4 costs, including incurred costs and future costs in its reports to Congress as required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, so that Congress has a complete understanding of all Block 4 costs and can compare this baseline to future cost estimates and performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to our report, DOD stated that future reports to Congress will include prior and future costs, outside of the Future Years Defense Program costs. As of September 15, 2020, DOD has not yet issued an updated report to Congress. We will monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation once it releases its next report.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to complete a program office level, product-oriented work breakdown structure for the next update to its Block 4 cost estimate to ensure that the estimate meets the comprehensive leading practices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: Though DOD did not concur with this recommendation, in response to this report, DOD agreed to evaluate moving to a program-level, product-oriented work breakdown structure in 2021. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to conduct risk and uncertainty analyses for the next update to its Block 4 cost estimate to ensure that the estimate meets the credible leading practices. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to this report, DOD stated that the F-35 program office estimate is aligned with the DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's approach and methodology for performing development cost estimates. However, DOD did not identify specific actions it plans to take to include risk and uncertainty into its next Block 4 cost estimate update. We will continue to monitor any actions DOD takes in this regard.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to consider the results of its future technology readiness assessment of all Block 4 technologies and incorporate the cost and schedule risks of developing those technologies in the next update to its Block 4 cost estimate to ensure that the estimate meets the comprehensive leading practices. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to this report, DOD stated that it continues to evaluate technology readiness levels for Block 4. It noted that Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering would conduct and independent technology readiness assessment of the Block 4 effort, which the program would use to inform future cost estimates. In May 2020, the F-35 Program Office issued a Technology Readiness Assessment Plan for Block 4. This plan outlines an incremental assessment approach aligned with Block 4 capability drops beginning with the drop scheduled for April 2021. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider revising Section 224(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, to extend DOD's Block 4 reporting requirement until all Block 4 capabilities are fielded to ensure that Congress is aware of cost and schedule growth beyond 2023. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has not extended the Block 4 reporting requirement in Section 224(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. We will continue to monitor any action the Congress may take in this regard.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should establish an analysis plan for the evaluation of OPN-funded pilot program availabilities, based on the leading practices for pilot programs. This analysis plan should identify opportunities to evaluate schedule outcomes of pilot program availabilities as compared to non-pilot program availabilities and document a process for evaluating lessons learned from the pilot program (Recommendation 1).

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

Comments: The Department of the Navy concurred with our recommendation in May 2020, stating that it would establish an analysis plan for evaluating Other Procurement, Navy-funded pilot program availabilities. In July 2020, the Director, Maintenance & Modernization, within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs, stated that the Navy has drafted this analysis plan, which is now undergoing required Department of Defense (DOD) reviews. The Director stated that he expects this review process to be completed sometime in late summer 2020. Once complete, he stated that his office will provide the analysis plan to GAO for review to confirm that it satisfies our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Executive Director should ensure the development and implementation of policies and procedures for incorporating key cybersecurity activities into IT project planning, including scheduling, requirements management, and risk management. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OCWR noted that it was in the process of revising its IT systems project planning to ensure the development and implementation of policies and procedure incorporating key cybersecurity activities. The agency also stated that it plans to hire an IT Security Project Manager in order to acquire the necessary cybersecurity expertise needed to implement this recommendation and to ensure that sufficient time and resources can be dedicated to the development and implementation of these policies and procedures. We will continue to monitor OCWR's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Executive Director should ensure the development and implementation of oversight procedures for each externally-operated system that include (1) establishing security and privacy requirements, (2) planning the assessment of security controls, (3) conducting the assessment, and, (4) reviewing the assessment. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OCWR noted that it was beginning to plan for developing and implementing oversight procedures for each externally-operated system. We will continue to monitor OCWR's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Executive Director should ensure the establishment of roles and responsibilities for a risk executive function. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OCWR noted that it had expanded the office's IT Director's role to formally include the functions of an IT Risk Executive and was in the process of establishing the roles and responsibilities. We will continue to monitor OCWR's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Executive Director should ensure the development and implementation of a cybersecurity risk management strategy. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OCWR noted that it was beginning to plan for developing and implementing a cybersecurity risk management strategy. We will continue to monitor OCWR's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Executive Director should ensure commitment to a time frame for developing and implementing policies and procedures for managing cybersecurity risk. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OCWR noted that, once the position of IT Security Project Manager is filled and the IT Risk Executive functions are formalized, the agency is planning to commit to a time frame for developing and implementing policies and procedures for managing cybersecurity risk. We will continue to monitor OCWR's progress in addressing this recommendation

Recommendation: We recommend the Secretary of the Air Force issue policy emphasizing the following three key reliability practices when planning and executing acquisition programs: (1) leveraging reliability engineers early and often, (2) establishing realistic reliability requirements, and (3) employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Air Force agreed with this recommendation and told us they will be updating Air Force Instruction AFI63-101/20-101 to ensure the inclusion of key practices to improve weapon system reliability, including leveraging reliability engineers early and often, establishing realistic reliability requirements, and employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. The Air Force said it plans to complete this effort by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: We recommend the Secretary of the Navy issue policy emphasizing the following three key reliability practices when planning and executing acquisition programs: (1) leveraging reliability engineers early and often, (2) establishing realistic reliability requirements, and (3) employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy agreed with this recommendation and told us they plan to address GAO's recommendation in two ways. First, they are developing a guidebook for program managers and leadership to emphasize the importance of leveraging reliability engineers early and often, establishing realistic reliability requirements, and employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. The Navy anticipates the guidebook will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2021. Second, the Navy plans to update the SECNAV 5000.2 when it is open for changes. They noted, this is dependent on the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) completing its ongoing update to DOD-wide acquisition guidance. The Navy anticipates OSD's efforts will be completed by end of calendar year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Undersecretary for Management develops an oversight process to confirm that programs' schedule goals are developed and updated in accordance with GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide, to include ensuring traceability between APB schedule goals and IMSs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Management Directorate's Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) developed a checklist based on GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide, among other things, to evaluate programs' IMSs. PARM also plans to develop guidance on schedules which is intended to assist the Component Acquisition Executives (CAE) and acquisition program staff responsible for building IMSs and APBs. In July 2020, PARM officials reported that the schedule checklist was already being used to evaluate and ensure program IMSs adhered to GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. In addition, PARM officials are updating and drafting guidance on schedules to assist CAEs and program staff when building IMSs and APBs. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of executing these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Undersecretary for Management revises the schedule development guidance in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guidebook to state clearly that an IMS should be used as the basis for APB schedule goals. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that Management Directorate's Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) was in the process of revising the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guidebook and would clarify the language relating to IMSs to ensure guidance is consistent. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of revising the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guidebook.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to define and determine a schedule for synchronization reviews, including the role of the proposed Lunar Exploration Control Board, to help ensure that requirements between mission and program levels are reconciled. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Advanced Exploration Systems division will review program life-cycle review plans to ensure enterprise and program requirements are reconciled across the mission. NASA is in the process of determining the organizational structure of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. Following this completion, NASA officials stated that the appropriate control board and division structures for review and program direction will become active.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level at the program level for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated it would conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent. The Gateway program is planning to conduct a series of project- and program-level reviews and assessments aligned with key decision point reviews. This includes conducting a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent of the Gateway initial configuration to support a program key decision point planned for fall 2021. NASA has not yet taken action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to update its overall schedule for 2024 to add a KDP II to occur before system integration. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken action on it. NASA stated that it would provide a schedule for future reviews, including whether there will be a Key Decision Point (KDP) II, at the KDP-I review currently scheduled for fall 2021.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations creates a life-cycle cost estimate for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA agreed with the recommendation and stated that the agency will provide a preliminary cost estimate for the Artemis III mission by the end of 2020. Further, NASA stated that it will provide an updated cost estimate for the Artemis III mission after it establishes cost and schedule commitments for some of the projects that compose the lunar mission, currently planned for the Spring of 2021. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide a cost estimate.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to commit to a completion date and finalize a cohesive document outlining the rationale for selecting its current lunar architecture and lunar programs. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is developing a document that will summarize the trades and architectural studies, but the document is not yet complete.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the Office of the Chief Engineer determines under what conditions it is appropriate to complete an analysis of alternatives, particularly when there are multiple pathways—including architectures or programs—that NASA could pursue in the future, and document the justification for not completing an analysis. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any action on it. NASA stated that it will provide additional clarifying guidance for conducting analyses of alternatives for new programs in the next update to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements." NASA plans to complete the update of the procedural requirement in September 2021.

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 Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop cost estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations that meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs). (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided in April 2020, DOE said that it had taken steps to ensure the cost estimates will meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs) as part of contract negotiations for the cleanup project. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations that meet best practices for being well-constructed. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that in negotiating the Idaho Cleanup Project contract it had taken steps to ensure the schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations will meet best practices for being well constructed. Further, DOE stated that the remaining baseline scope and schedule estimate received an external review by its contractor's parent corporation and DOE's Office of Environmental Management to ensure that the schedule meets best practices for being well-constructed. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to follow best practices for ensuring the reliability for the IWTU reengineering project's earned value management system. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that cost and performance data for the IWTU is being tracked against the cost and schedule baselines incorporated in the core contract for the Idaho Cleanup Project, and that the data meets best practices for reliability. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop a strategy, including a timeline, for implementing the actions required to achieve its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, for the SBW. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that EM will assess the range of potential strategies and pathways for disposal of the treated SBW. Once this effort is completed, GAO will review EM's strategy and timeline for achieving its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, and update the status of this recommendation accordingly.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop a strategy, including a timeline, to identify and develop a treatment approach for the disposal of the calcine waste to ensure that EM meets the milestone for completing the treatment of this waste by the target date of December 31, 2035. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that DOE's Idaho Operations Office is in the process of chartering a team of subject matter experts to update an analysis of alternatives for calcine treatment and disposal. DOE said that this evaluation will be completed by September 30, 2020. GAO will request additional information from DOE on this analysis once completed and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should ensure that the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service develops a strategy that outlines the steps needed to routinely collect information on and monitor the time frames for finalizing construction contract changes at the headquarters level. The strategy could address issues such as the types of construction contract changes that should be included, when the measurement of the contract change process should begin, and the information systems that will be affected. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In September 2019, GSA told us that it will set up a cross functional team with officials from the Public Building Service offices of Acquisitions and Design and Construction, and the GSA Office of Government-wide Policy, to develop a strategic plan to address the recommendation. In July 2020, GSA told us that the final action step for this recommendation was due to be completed on August 31, 2020. We will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation as we receive more information on steps taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a strategy to expand on existing data and systems to routinely collect information on and monitor the time frames for finalizing construction contract changes at the headquarters level. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In July 2020, DOD officials told us that it has developed a corrective action plan to address the recommendation, which is estimated to be completed at the end of August 2020. We will continue to monitor progress once we receive the corrective action plan.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the SLS program to calculate its development cost growth using a baseline that is appropriately adjusted for scope and costs NASA has determined are not associated with the first flight, and determine if the development cost growth has increased by 30 percent or more. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. As of February 2020, NASA stated that it is conducting a rebaseline of the cost and schedule commitments for the SLS program and will document final decisions in an Agency Baseline Commitment decision memorandum. NASA officials anticipate they will complete this effort in Spring 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to measure cost growth using a baseline that reflects the scope of work currently planned for the first mission.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the Orion program to update its cost estimate to reflect its committed EM-2 baseline date of April 2023. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that providing the estimate to the forecasted launch date rather than to the committed baseline date of April 2023 is the most appropriate approach. In November 2019, program officials told us that they will consider this recommendation as part of updating the joint confidence level analysis for the program's Key Decision Point D review. This review occurs before the program enters the system assembly, integration and test, and launch phase, and is not scheduled to occur until December 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA needs to provide an updated cost estimate through April 2023.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the EGS program to demonstrate design maturity by completing 3D product modeling of the basic and functional design of the second Mobile Launcher prior to construction start. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that the acquisition strategy for the second mobile launcher requires the use of 3D product modeling and that it will be the source for all engineering activities including integrated design reviews to demonstrate design maturity. It is too soon to assess the design maturity prior to construction start and we will provide updated information on actions NASA has taken at that time.

Recommendation: We recommend the NASA Administrator ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations direct the SLS and Orion programs to reevaluate their strategies for incentivizing contractors and determine whether they could more effectively incentivize contractors to achieve the outcomes intended as part of ongoing and planned contract negotiations. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with the intent of this recommendation and stated that the SLS and Orion program offices reevaluate their strategies for incentivizing contract performance as part of normal contracting activities including contract restructures, contract baseline adjustments, and new contract actions. The Orion program has awarded a long term contract for production of the Orion spacecraft that incorporates new strategies intended to reduce contract costs. The SLS program is in the process of negotiating long term production contracts for required hardware.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the KC-46 program office disseminates insights we identified in this report about the KC-46's contracting and sustainment planning experiences for consideration by acquisition programs, in particular those considering a fixed-price-type development contract or a commercial derivative aircraft.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and, as of the summer 2020, has drafted a report that is with the Secretary of the Air Force for review prior to issuance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Director, Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to conduct an independent schedule assessment of the full program schedule for the Global Positioning System's next generation operational control system based on progress made through the end of calendar year 2019. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to conduct an independent assessment of the full OCX program schedule based on progress made through the end of calendar year 2019, citing an independent cost and schedule estimate conducted in September 2018 and other ongoing program assessment and monitoring efforts. GAO continues to affirm that the recommendation is necessary given that DOD has not conducted an assessment of the full schedule since June 2018, since which time program risks have evolved. Additionally, ongoing oversight efforts are limited in scope and do not include the developmental test period after product delivery. As of August 2020, the Air Force position remains a non-concur, based on the same rationale previously noted.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office assesses whether the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) R&M targets are still feasible and revise the ORD accordingly. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would review its Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) requirements and possibly revise them. In late 2019, the F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) developed an initiative to clearly identify what, if any, revisions DOD should make to the ORD. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office, as it revises its Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program (RMIP), identifies specific and measurable R&M objectives in its RMIP guidance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) RMIP guidance. In late 2019, DOD reported that a revised RMIP will be delivered to program leadership for approval. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office, as it revises its RMIP, identifies and documents which RMIP projects will achieve the identified objectives of the RMIP guidance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its RMIP guidance. In late 2019, DOD reported that a revised RMIP will be delivered to program leadership for approval. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office prioritizes funding for the RMIP. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would plan for R&M funding going forward. In Sept. 2019, the F-35 Program Office reported that it was coordinating with the services to increase its Reliability & Maintainability investment. In Nov. 2019, the F-35 Program Office reported that it would allocate significant additional funding for RMIP for calendar year 2020. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

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 Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements that clearly define how and where project management lessons learned for capital asset projects should be documented and saved to make them readily accessible across the department. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to identify the project management lessons learned and outline the kinds of information the repository will collect. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for sharing project management lessons learned for capital asset projects from the beginning of a project (i.e., prior to the start of construction at CD-3) routinely and in a timely manner to improve DOE's ability to identify and evaluate problematic practices and positive experiences. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to have those conducting peer reviews elicit project management lessons learned with department-wide applicability and submit any discerned, as well as replace the order's definition of project management lessons learned with a standard industry definition. We will monitor DOE's efforts and evaluate the actions once they are complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management problems for capital asset projects, with a focus on those lessons that necessitate the need for department-wide improvements. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, plans to revise the Project Management Risk Committee charter by assigning it the responsibility to qualitatively evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management lessons learned from projects with a total project cost greater than $750 million having department-wide implications. This action, however, may not fully address the recommendation, in part because there may be some lessons learned with applicability department-wide from projects that do not meet this cost threshold. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Navy provides additional information in the annual President's budget exhibits associated with CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal to facilitate improved transparency and accountability. Additions should, at a minimum, include the CVN 65 funding estimate across the Future Years Defense Program, activities planned or performed for applicable fiscal years, tracking of total cost and high level changes in cost and schedule from the prior year with explanations for changes, and if applicable, contract type, awardee, award value, and award and completion date estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that the Navy would develop and submit additional cost, schedule, and contract information to supplement existing budget exhibits and continue this reporting through completion of the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act enacted on August 13, 2018. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to include information on each dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier occurring or planned to occur during the period of the future years defense program submitted to Congress with that budget. For each ship, this includes (1) a summary of activities and significant developments in connection with the dismantlement and disposal; (2) a detailed description of cost and schedule performance against the baseline for the dismantlement and disposal, including a description of and explanation for any variance from such baseline; and (3) a description of the funding amounts requested, or expected to be requested, for the dismantlement and disposal for prior, current, and future fiscal years. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a schedule of work and requesting funding for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal plans in 2023 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to obtain an independent cost estimate, performed by DOD's Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation or the Naval Center for Cost Analysis, for both the naval shipyard and full commercial options before choosing a dismantlement and disposal approach for CVN 65. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would obtain independent cost estimates through the Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for both the naval shipyard and full commercial CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal options before a final decision is made on which option the Navy will pursue. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also said the Navy is working directly with the Center for Naval Analyses, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and CAPE to gather and review independent cost estimates for commercial dismantlement and updated naval shipyard cost estimates. The commercial and naval shipyard estimates will be reviewed and assessed by CAPE prior to the Navy making a decision on which option to pursue. CAPE's written report assessing the commercial and naval shipyard estimates is expected to combine with the ongoing EIS to directly inform the Navy's decision for CVN 65. We will continue to monitor the status of independent cost estimate activities for CVN 65 until the estimates have been completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to complete a risk management plan prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare a risk management plan for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of a contract or the provision of funds. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that if the Navy selects the commercial dismantlement option for CVN 65, the Navy anticipates identifying potential risks and mitigations in February 2021 for CVN 65 dismantling to support independent cost estimate development, with risk management plan approval to follow in July 2022. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's efforts to complete a risk management plan as the department works toward a decision for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to approve a cost and schedule baseline prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare and approve a cost and schedule baseline for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of any contract or the provision of funds for the effort. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department on August 13, 2018, as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that provides a cost and schedule baseline for the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear powered aircraft carriers approved by Navy leadership. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a cost and schedule baseline for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal in 2022 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

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 direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to update the policy or guidance for MAIS business programs. Specifically, the update should include the following elements: (1) establishment of initial and current baseline cost and schedule estimates, (2) predetermined threshold cost and schedule estimates to identify the point when programs may be at high risk, and (3) quarterly and annual reports on the performance of programs to stakeholders. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued an updated instruction on defense business systems requirements and acquisition, which included guidance on establishing baseline cost and schedule estimates and considering progress against the baselines at key decision points. However, the instruction does not make a distinction between initial and current baselines. Further, it did not include thresholds for cost and schedule variances or specify periodic reporting of program performance information to stakeholders. According to an official in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the office does not intend to add the elements of the recommendation related to thresholds and reporting. Specifically, according to the official, the office considers specifying predetermined threshold cost and schedule estimates and frequency for status reporting to be matters for implementation guidance issued by department components or determined by a program decision authority. However, until the department demonstrates that it has fully addressed the recommendation, it is limited in its ability to ensure that effective system acquisition management controls are implemented for each major business system investment and that stakeholders have the information needed to make informed decisions for managing and overseeing these investments. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Director of the Defense Health Agency to direct the program manager for the Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization program to: (1) finalize and approve its requirements management plan, (2) identify and document changes that should be made to plans and work products resulting from changes to the requirements baseline, and (3) quantify costs and benefits of risk mitigation within its program-level risk mitigation plans. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, the Department of Defense had made progress addressing the intent of the recommendation related to requirements management; however, it needs to do more to improve DHMSM program risk management. Specifically, in March 2019, the DHMSM program manager approved a requirements management plan, which includes identifying and documenting changes that should be made to plans and work products resulting from changes to the baseline requirements. Specifically, it includes forward and backward configuration and change management of the baselined requirements and managing traceability of requirements to design artifacts, test cases, defects, and change requests. However, the program has not demonstrated that it quantifies costs and benefits of risk mitigation in its risk mitigation plans. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that it had updated its guidance to require that costs and benefits of risk mitigation plans be included in these plans. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Management should require the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management to assess the results of major acquisition programs' post-implementation reviews and identify opportunities to improve performance across the acquisition portfolio. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to update its policy to require more formal reporting requirements and execution criteria for post-implementation reviews. PARM also plans to initiate a study focused on assessing lessons learned and developing a tool to share them across components to improve performance of the acquisition portfolio. In February 2020, PARM approved guidance intended to standardize analysis elements for post-implementation reviews. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of developing a tool to share results across components, but in the interim, results from some post-implementation reviews have been shared during meetings with Component Acquisition Executives. GAO will review post-implementation reviews conducted under the new guidance and will monitor DHS's implementation of the tool to ensure the department's actions meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct ORP to require the WTP contractor to determine the full extent to which problems exist in all WTP structures, systems, and components.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. As of June 15, 2020, DOE has started to take action to implement this recommendation, but actions are not sufficient to close it yet. DOE has directed the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) construction contractor to determine the full extent to which problems exist in all WTP structures, systems, and components and plans to complete full implementation of this recommendation by February 15, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct ORP to use its authorities to stop work in areas where quality assurance problems are recurring until ORP's Quality Assurance Division can verify that the problems are corrected and will not recur.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. As of July 1, 2020, DOE has taken some action to implement this recommendation, but actions are not sufficient to close it yet. To implement this recommendation, DOE strengthened and evaluated the existing Office of River Protection (ORP) Stop Work process to ensure it is sufficiently rigorous. In June 2020, ORP activated this new process. However, ORP has not yet used its authority to stop work in areas in areas where quality assurance problems are recurring.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure that the Marine Corps not enter full-rate production until the Marine Corps has determined that the contractor has achieved an MRL of at least 9 for all risk areas. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it agreed that manufacturing readiness levels (MRL) for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 should be assessed prior to the decision to award the option for the second lot of low-rate production, but disagreed that an MRL assessment of any individual risk area, in itself, should delay the contract award. We maintained that achieving an overall MRL-9 by the by the start of full-rate production represents best practice to minimize production risk. According the Marine Corp, the most recent MRL Assessment as of August 2020 assessed the program at an overall MRL-8. The Marine Corps indicated that another MRL assessment is estimated to be completed in November 2020 to support the decision to enter full-rate production, which is planned for December 2020.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems used for LEPs meet the EVM national standard. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that the integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of earned value management (EVM) systems used by life extension programs (LEP), and other controls over data integration provide a practical and cost-beneficial approach to the validation of contractor EVM systems. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to validate contractor EVM systems against the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems meet the EVM national standard, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems used for LEPs to ensure that they maintain compliance with the EVM national standard through program completion. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it conducts ongoing surveillance through integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of EVM systems used by LEPs, and other assessments, which consider national standards. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems to ensure compliance with the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems through program completion, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require its programs to ensure that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points, or otherwise document with program executive approval their rationale for not meeting these benchmarks. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it has already incorporated specific benchmarks for technology readiness levels at decision points. As an example, it stated that it recommends a technology readiness level of 5 at the beginning of phase 6.3 for an LEP. As a result, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, it is important for NNSA to establish a requirement, not just a recommendation, that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should develop and implement effective processes and improve guidance to reasonably assure that future AAs fully follow AOA process best practices and reflect the four characteristics of a reliable, high-quality AOA process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS stated that it remains committed to its financial system modernization program and agrees that effective processes and guidance are necessary to assure best practices. In September 2020, DHS officials informed us that they did not have any updates to report on efforts to address this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with DHS on actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should improve the Risk Management Planning Handbook and other relevant guidance for managing risks associated with financial management system modernization projects to fully incorporate risk management best practices, including (1) defining thresholds to facilitate review of performance metrics to determine when risks become unacceptable; (2) identifying and analyzing risks to include periodically reconsidering risk sources, documenting risks specifically related to the lack of sufficient, reliable cost and schedule information needed to help properly manage and oversee the project, and timely disposition of IV&V contractor-identified risks; (3) developing risk mitigation plans with specific risk-handling activities, the costs and benefits of implementing them, and contingency plans for selected critical risks; and (4) implementing risk mitigation plans to include establishing periods of performance for risk-handling activities and defining time intervals for updating and certifying the accuracy and completeness of information on risks in DHS's risk register. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS stated that it is committed to its financial system modernization program and agrees that effective processes and guidance are necessary to assure best practices. In September 2019, DHS provided documentation that cross walked DHS' Risk Management Training Aide to the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for acquisition risk management best practices. However, the optional nature of the language used in the Training Aide does not reasonably assure that program offices will follow the suggested guidance. Also, the Training Aide does not specifically require the linking of thresholds to cost, schedule, and performance elements of identified risks. Based on our review of the information provided, DHS's corrective actions were not sufficient for addressing the intent of our recommendation. We will continue to evaluate DHS actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To mitigate the risk of poor acquisition outcomes and strengthen the department's investment decisions, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Undersecretary for Management to update the acquisition policy to require that major acquisition programs' technical requirements are well defined and key technical reviews are conducted prior to approving programs to initiate product development and establishing Acquisition Program Baselines, in accordance with acquisition best practices.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to initiate a study to assess how to better align its processes for technical reviews and acquisition decisions. Upon completion of the study, DHS updated its acquisition policy instruction in May 2019, which adjusted the acquisition life cycle. Specifically, the updated instruction requires programs to conduct key technical reviews--including a preliminary design review--prior to establishing the program's Acquisition Program Baseline. As of July 2020, DHS was in the process of updating the related policies and guidance for its Systems Engineering Life Cycle, which govern the department's technical reviews. GAO will review these policies and guidance once complete to confirm alignment with the changes made to the acquisition management instruction and will monitor DHS's implementation of its new acquisition life cycle to ensure the department's actions meet the intent of this recommendation.

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: To enhance program oversight and provide more robust input to budget deliberations, Congress should consider requiring DOD to report on each major acquisition program's systems engineering status in the department's annual budget request, beginning with the budget requesting funds to start development. The information could be presented on a simple timeline--as done for the case studies in this report--and at a minimum should reflect the status of a program's functional and allocated baselines as contained in the most current version of the program's systems engineering plan.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, Congress has not yet taken action on the matter for consideration. The Department of Defense (DOD) non-concurred and as of March 16, 2018, DOD officials reported they had closed this recommendation because they did not agree that the systems engineering plan was the most effective means to provide Congress insight into program risk. DOD officials stated that the timing of the systems engineering plan and any updates are not aligned to inform a budget decision that could occur as much as 18 months prior to program initiation; and existing statutory certifications and reports, such as 2366a and 2366b requirements, submitted to Congress contain adequate information regarding program risk and technical maturity. GAO initiated work in 2020 to examine recent congressionally mandated changes in DOD's acquisition and requirements processes and will assess whether those changes meet the intent of this recommendation.