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 Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD CIO to complete a department-wide inventory of existing IP-compliant devices and technologies to help with planning efforts and requirements development for the transition to IPv6. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD CIO to develop a cost estimate as described in OMB memorandum M-05-22 for the department's transition to IPv6. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD CIO to develop a risk analysis as described in OMB memorandum M-05-22 for the department's transition to IPv6. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management to ensure that EM's final AOA for HLW pretreatment at the Hanford Site includes a definition of mission need and life-cycle cost estimates for the baseline or status quo alternative, as called for in the best practices for an AOA process we have identified and DOE guidance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, EM officials told us that EM's final analysis of alternatives (AOA) "will include life cycle cost estimates consistent with" best practices and DOE guidance. We will continue to monitor the AOA process and evaluate the extent to which EM follows through with its commitment.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management to follow the steps outlined in GAO's risk-informed decision-making framework as EM makes decisions about the future of the pretreatment mission; in particular, engaging the Washington State Department of Ecology in the AOA process, communicating with them throughout the process, and providing them with transparent information about the rationale behind the final decision. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, EM officials told us that EM will "continue to include Ecology in the AOA process as an active participant, providing the opportunity for transparent and open communications through the process, inclusive of rationale used for the final decision." We will continue to follow the AOA process and monitor the extent to which EM follows through with its commitment.

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 Defense should ensure that the DOD Chief Management Officer direct the task force, in consultation with the resale organizations, to reassess its methodology for estimating IT costs of consolidation, and make any necessary adjustments to its range of IT cost estimates and provide that updated information to Congress. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that it had intended to convene an IT working group to reassess the methodology and begin detailed IT consolidation planning, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed this plan. DOD also said that the working group will form as soon as conditions allow and estimated that the working group will complete its work by October 31, 2020. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD Chief Management Officer provide additional written information to Congress on the comments and concerns from the military departments and resale organizations on the task force's November 2018 business case analysis, as well as the task force's response to those comments and concerns. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. In its written comments on our report, DOD stated that all the submitted comments were considered in the department's decision-making process; that all of the military department secretariats agreed with above-store consolidation, despite their comments on the business case analysis; and that the military department comments regarding the business case analysis were shared with congressional committee professional staff, even though the comments were not included in DOD's report to Congress so as to protect the department's deliberative process. In an August 2020 memorandum to GAO, DOD provided similar comments, stating that it considered all comments in its decision-making process and did not attach the comments to its report to Congress in order to protect DOD's internal deliberations. If DOD takes action to respond to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to develop a plan to attain mature technologies when needed for each ABMS development area, which includes an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity that is updated to reflect changes, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity, and a plan to attain mature technologies for each development area. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to prepare a cost estimate that is developed in accordance with cost estimating leading practices, to include regularly updating the estimate to reflect ABMS changes and actual costs, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with a cost estimate of ABMS development activities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to prepare an affordability analysis that should be regularly updated, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with the affordability analysis for the fiscal year 2021 budget request. In addition, the department plans to provide an affordability analysis as part of the fiscal year 2022 budget request submission to Congress. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should formalize and document acquisition authority and decision-making responsibilities of the Air Force offices involved in the planning and execution of ABMS, to include the Chief Architect. This document should be included as part of the submission to Congress in June 2020 and communicated to the Air Force offices that support ABMS. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with documentation of decision-making authorities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander, in coordination with the military services and the Coast Guard, develop a process for tracking data during the first 3 years of the Global Household Goods Contract to inform its planned manpower study during the third year of the contract to more precisely determine DP3 manpower needs and associated costs. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander develop performance metrics for those DP3 activities that will not be a part of the Global Household Goods Contract, such as servicemember counseling and claims resolution that will, at least in part, continue to be performed by the military services. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander articulate the linkage, where appropriate, between DP3 performance metrics, including Global Household Goods Contract performance indicators, and overarching program goals. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should change its definition for setting operational availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy by adding information that defines the operational availability requirement by mission area in addition to the ship level and includes all equipment failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that it would work with the Navy and Joint Staff to revisit requirements definitions for shipbuilding programs to better ensure that they are traceable to a ship's mission and can be used across ship development and fielding. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should change its definition for setting materiel availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System requirements policy to include all factors that could result in a ship being unavailable for operations, such as unplanned maintenance, unplanned losses, and training. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation stating that it will work with the Navy and the Joint Staff to revisit requirements definitions for shipbuilding programs to better ensure materiel availability requirements include all factors that could preclude a ship from operating. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update existing operational availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When revising these requirements, the Navy should set operational availability requirements that: (1) are based on failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions and (2) are set at the mission level instead of ship level. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply only to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process. While important steps towards improving the requirements setting process, DOD officials did not state whether any policy changes would apply to current shipbuilding programs. As we discussed in our report, at least four ship classes have plans for a new flight, block, and/or major modification. DOD and the Navy may miss key opportunities to improve the Navy's sustainment requirements if it excludes existing programs that have established requirements but have yet to start design or construction.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update the materiel availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When developing or revising these requirements, the Navy should set materiel availability requirements that fully capture all factors that could preclude a ship from being ready when needed. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once the Navy revises its sustainment requirements, to ensure that shipbuilding programs report operational availability and materiel availability requirements in Selected Acquisition Reports, and alternatives to the Selected Acquisition Reports, for Congress. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and will report operational and materiel availability in the Selected Acquisition Reports based on new definitions in DOD guidance. Therefore, we plan to close this recommendation once DOD updates its definitions and reports numbers in the SAR based on these new definitions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to ensure that cost estimators follow current guidance and GAO-identified best practices and conduct sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation stating that it agrees that the use of sensitivity, uncertainty, and risk analyses is a best practice to ensure credible, defensible life cycle cost estimates. However, the Navy has yet to issue any policy updates or provide any evidence that it is conducting sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) to ensure all shipbuilding programs develop and update LCSPs, in accordance with DOD policy, that demonstrate how a ship class can be affordably operated and maintained while meeting sustainment requirements, including associated business case analyses and identifying sustainment risk. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will ensure that all shipbuilding program develop and maintain accurate and complete life cycle sustainment plans. However, as we state in our report, the Navy did not have any accurate and completed life cycle sustainment plans and, as July 2020, has not updated any of these plans.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to evaluate and implement changes to the ILA in order to position the ILA to effectively identify key sustainment risks and make recommendations for risk mitigation, which may include existing Navy proposals to change the ILA process. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: The department concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Navy will undertake a review and will approve any updated Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) policy that emphasizes risk identification and mitigation in the ILA review. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment co-chaired a system-level ILA Working Group in 2020 to rewrite the Navy ILA Handbook to address key deficiencies in the current ILA process and to emphasize the use of a readiness at cost model. ILA Handbook and associated Secretary of Navy Instructions is currently in comment adjudication. In addition, Naval Sea Systems Command is developing an ILA database that provides stakeholders with visibility and insight into their respective programs' ILA-identified sustainment risks to closure. Once completed, Navy officials state that these items should implement the needed improvements to ILAs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to ensure sustainment-related briefing topics prescribed by the Navy's acquisition policy are consistently discussed at Gate reviews. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has updated its Gate 6 sustainment sufficiency process and is executing a new Gate 7 sustainment review. In July 2020, Navy officials reported to us that the Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition will collaborate to ensure sustainment focus areas are properly emphasized at all Gate reviews. As our report states, focusing on sustainment at Gate 7 is likely insufficient to address many of the problems we found in the report. However, as of July 2020, the Navy has yet to provide us with evidence that demonstrate an increase in focus on sustainment during gate briefings or any of the new Gate 7 briefings.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to implement the sustainment program baseline initiative for shipbuilding programs and, in so doing, develop a mechanism that ensures that sustainment outcomes are a factor in shipbuilding programs' decision-making during the acquisition process. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and Navy acquisition leadership officials stated that they will review the results of the demonstration programs for the Sustainment Program Baseline initiative and implement guidance for shipbuilding and all programs in subsequent guidance and policy concerning Sustainment Program Baselines. In updating its response to our recommendations in July 2020, the Navy is planning to implement the Sustainment Program Baseline as a pilot program for ships and submarines in fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should revise SECNAVINST 5000.2 and other associated guidance to ensure PSMs are assigned to shipbuilding program offices in time to inform early acquisition decisions, including development of the program's sustainment requirements and LCSPs. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: the Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that they will ensure that Product Support Managers (PSM) are assigned to acquisition programs ahead of Milestone A in compliance with existing DoD PSM policies. However, as of July 2020, the Navy did not state that it is planning to revise SECNAVINST 5000.2.

Recommendation: Congress should consider developing an oversight mechanism for evaluating shipbuilding programs' sustainment cost estimate growth during the acquisition process, with requirements for the Navy to: (1) report sustainment cost estimate growth information to Congress and (2) reassess shipbuilding programs that are experiencing a high level of sustainment cost estimate growth.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there are several draft bills that would address this matter.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops a program-wide process for measuring, collecting, and tracking information on how ALIS is affecting the performance of the F-35 fleet to include, but not be limited to, its effects on mission capability rates. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops and implements a strategy for the re-design of ALIS. The strategy should be detailed enough to clearly identify and assess the goals, key risks or uncertainties, and costs of re-designing the system. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Executive Director for Operations of NRC should ensure relevant NRC program offices develop policy and guidance for when to communicate information on work progress to licensees, such as through communications to licensees at specified timeframes or thresholds. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Directorate for Operations
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current practice of providing information on work progress to licensees and develop or revise any policy and guidance where necessary. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Financial Officer of NRC should, in consultation with NRC program offices, develop guidance to ensure NRC staff clearly define what costs—such as project management—are included in its public cost estimates. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current web-based cost estimates to determine if changes are necessary and implement those changes as appropriate. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The FEMA administrator should revise FEMA's cost-estimating guidance for Public Assistance projects to fully align with all 12 steps in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and is working to address it.

Recommendation: The FEMA administrator should develop a repository for all current applicable Public Assistance policies and guidance for Puerto Rico and make it available to all recovery partners, including subrecipients. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and is working to address it.

Recommendation: The Postmaster General should direct executive leaders to develop guidance for cost savings estimates related to employee compensation specifying that analysis used to calculate estimates should, to the extent possible, include significant factors, such as work hours, tenure, and turnover. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Postal Service
Status: Open

Comments: USPS accepted this recommendation and said, in July 2020, that it was developing internal guidance for cost savings estimates to ensure appropriate factors are considered when evaluating changes to employee compensation. USPS estimates that this guidance will be complete by October 31, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment develop and implement a plan to guide and coordinate efforts to implement the Wideband AOA recommendations to support timely, informed decisions on its next wideband satellite communications architecture. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of July 2020 is still working to implement its corrective action plan.

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 Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to take steps to manage the three GDPs as an integrated program and follow relevant program management leading practices (developing a GDP-wide program management plan; an integrated master schedule; and a reliable, integrated, comprehensive life-cycle cost estimate.) (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (PPPO) is in the process of developing a program management master plan, to include site-integrated master schedules and life-cycle cost estimates, for the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs). Officials stated that the plan will incorporate program management leading practices as appropriate. According to DOE officials, EM will direct PPPO to use actual collected cost and schedule information for integration of relevant lessons learned from ETTP cleanup into integrated program plans, schedules, and estimates. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to track consistent and detailed expenditure information on cleanup activities across the three GDPs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) is assessing and identifying an appropriate mechanism for tracking expenditures for both the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP sites, using a standardized approach with an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) reporting on, at a minimum, an annual basis. According to DOE officials, PPPO is in the process of using the ETTP data as a basis of comparison for contractor estimates and assessing the potential development of cost estimating tools for independent cost estimating. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to ensure the site-specific life-cycle cost estimates for the cleanup of each of the GDPs fully incorporate best practices for cost estimation. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has directed the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP sites to review and incorporate the practices from GAO's Cost Estimating Guide (GAO-20-195G), as appropriate, into the next revision of each site's life-cycle cost baselines. According to DOE officials, Oak Ridge is in the process of procuring a follow-on cleanup contract, which includes the scope to complete the cleanup of ETTP. According to DOE officials, given that the cleanup of the ETTP GDP is nearly complete, the baseline for the entire ETTP GDP will not be included in the life cycle cost estimate review. Officials stated the remaining scope of work for the ETTP GDP will, however, become part of the performance baseline for the next Oak Ridge cleanup contractor. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work—in conjunction with EPA and Kentucky and Tennessee state regulators—with an independent, third-party facilitator to help resolve disagreements over cleanup priorities, cleanup remedies, and cost estimation assumptions. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has incorporated the use of an independent facilitator on a case-by-case basis to help resolve any disagreements, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Kentucky and Tennessee state regulators over cleanup priorities, remedies, and cost estimation assumptions. Officials stated that most recently, the Paducah GDP site used an independent facilitator to resolve disagreements with EPA Region IV and Kentucky state regulators. According to DOE officials, in the future, EM will continue the use of an independent facilitator, as deemed appropriate. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should regularly report on the status of the D&D Fund and cleanup efforts at the three GDPs with current information that contains details on challenges in reaching agreement with regulators and a clear scope of work. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has prepared the triennial Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Report, providing accomplishments through fiscal year 2019 and disclosing the most recent environmental liability estimate associated with remaining challenges and scope of cleanup at the GDPs. Officials stated that the report is being circulated for approval. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop and implement a plan with GSA that outlines the actions needed to fully recover the TMF Program Management Office's operating expenses with administrative fee collection in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with GSA to clarify the requirement in the TMF guidance that agencies follow the cost estimating process outlined in Circular A-11 (that references GAO's cost estimating guidance discussed in this report), when developing the proposal cost estimate. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should develop and implement a plan with OMB that outlines the actions needed to fully recover the TMF Program Management Office's operating expenses with administrative fee collection in a timely manner. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should work with OMB to clarify the requirement in the TMF guidance that agencies follow the cost estimating process outlined in Circular A-11 (that references GAO's cost estimating guidance discussed in this report), when developing the proposal cost estimate. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should develop detailed guidance for completing the Technology Modernization Fund project cost estimate template, including information on the data elements and the fields required to be completed, in order to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the provided information. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the General Services Administration (GSA) concurred with our recommendation but has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, should ensure that the average cost per square foot performance measure for GSA-managed space is calculated using actual cost information. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and has developed an action plan to implement it. In January 2020, GSA officials told us that GSA will change the method for calculating the average cost per square foot performance measure by now using the actual rent agencies paid to GSA in the calculation. GSA officials also stated that GSA will post this information annually to performance.gov. We will continue to monitor GSA's implementation of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) include all costs—such as costs for program office activities, utilities, roads, environmental remediation, historical preservation, and alternative workspace—when developing its second, more detailed, cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) use cost estimating best practices—as outlined in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide—in developing its second cost estimate, including a program baseline, work breakdown structure, a description of the methodology and key assumptions, inflation, fully addressing risk and uncertainty, and a sensitivity analysis. (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 Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) obtain an independent cost estimate of the Naval Shipyards program prior to the start of its project prioritization effort. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555), in coordination with relevant stakeholders, establish clear roles and responsibilities for the shipyards involved in the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should direct the Administrator of FTA to identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications submitted by larger entities, such as a city, county, or state government, to address the risk of duplicate funding. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
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 Administrator of FEMA to identify and develop controls, such as methods to more easily identify transit expenses within applications submitted by larger entities such as a city, county, or state government, to address the risk of duplicate funding. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
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 CMS should require states to submit and make public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval of demonstrations, including those with work requirements and all other demonstrations. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid because requiring states to make public information about administrative costs would help to ensure that demonstration proposals provide sufficient information to ensure meaningful public input.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should account for the administrative costs of demonstrations, including those with work requirements and all other demonstrations, when assessing whether demonstrations are budget neutral. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid because including administrative costs in its assessments will help HHS ensure that demonstrations are budget neutral.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should assess the risks of providing federal funds for costs to administer work requirements that are not allowable and should respond to risks by improving oversight procedures, as warranted. This assessment should consider risks related to costs for information systems, beneficiary supports, and managed care. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation in its September 2019 comments on the report. We maintain that the recommendation is valid and that assessing these risks of providing federal funds for costs that are not allowable and improving oversight, as warranted, would help HHS to ensure the integrity of the Medicaid program.

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

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: Congress should consider giving BLM the authority to obtain funds from operators to reclaim orphaned wells, and requiring BLM to implement a mechanism to obtain sufficient funds from operators for reclaiming orphaned wells. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has not taken action as of April 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of BLM should take steps to adjust bond levels to more closely reflect expected reclamation costs, such as by increasing regulatory minimums to reflect inflation and incorporating consideration of the number of wells on each bond and their characteristics. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open

Comments: In a August 2019 letter to GAO, BLM noted Instruction Memorandum 2019-014, "Oil and Gas Bond Adequacy Reviews", related to the agency's response to this recommendation. The Instruction Memorandum does not increase regulatory minimums to reflect inflation or incorporate the consideration of the number of wells on each bond and their characteristics, but BLM is collecting data to determine the effectiveness of this Instruction Memorandum. BLM noted any further action will depend on the results of the data analysis, expected to be continued through the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2021. As of April 2020 this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct BLM to modify its computer program that generates its Bond Review Report to identify all instances in which a state office needs to develop a corrective action plan to address deficiencies, such as an inadequate financial assurance, a late review, or missing data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, BLM officials stated that they will revise the LR2000 Bond Review Report to identify all instances in which a state office needs to develop a corrective action plan in accordance with BLM policy. They estimate this will be completed by June 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Forest Service to develop a centralized mechanism to record the current estimated cost of reclamation for a mining operation so that this information is readily available for comparison with the financial assurance held. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, the agency has made progress in implementing this recommendation. Specifically, the agency has modified the bonding portion of the Natural Resource Manager data system to include required data fields to record the initial bond received, adjustments made to required bonding amount, and date of last annual review when a needed adjustment was determined. The agency has also added a remarks field to record any increase or decrease in the estimated cost of reclamation that resulted in the revised required bond amount. The agency is currently working to update its internal guidance so that staff are aware of the requirement and process to document these items. We agreed to check back on the status of that guidance in early 2021 and will update the recommendation status at that time.

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 Secretary of VA should direct the Under Secretary for Health and the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology/Chief Information Officer to develop and implement a methodology for reliably identifying and reporting the total costs of VistA. The methodology should include steps to identify the definition of VistA and what is to be included in its sustainment activities, as well as ensure that comprehensive costs are corroborated by reliable data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) generally agreed with our conclusions and concurred with our recommendation. In a January 2020 update, the department described steps it planned to take to address the recommendation including establishing a team of experts to formulate a comprehensive taxonomy for VistA and all of its components, identifying authoritative and reliable data sources to assign costs to those components, and developing a methodology for ongoing cost tracking and reporting. The department expects these steps to be implemented by September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's progress to address this recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the fiscal year 2019 plan includes the statutorily required elements or discloses why any element was not included in the plan. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS agreed with our recommendation and in August 2020, DHS issued the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Border Security Improvement Plan. The plan includes a description and the status for satisfying of each of the 11 statutorily required elements. GAO has on-going work to review the plan.

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 Commerce should direct the Director of the Census Bureau to direct the Census Bureau's Chief Information Officer (CIO) to take steps to ensure that identified corrective actions for cybersecurity weaknesses are implemented within prescribed time frames. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce agreed with our recommendation. It provided an action plan in August 2019. We will review the Bureau's progress in addressing this recommendation as part of our ongoing work on the 2020 Census.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Commerce should direct the Director of the Census Bureau to direct the Bureau's CIO to implement a formal process for tracking and executing appropriate corrective actions to remediate cybersecurity weaknesses identified by DHS, and expeditiously address the identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce agreed with our recommendation. In August 2019, the Bureau stated that it is developing a process for tracking and executing corrective actions identified by governing bodies and external entities. We will review the Bureau's progress in addressing this recommendation as part of our ongoing work on the 2020 Census.

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 FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office finalizes the organizational change management plan and time frames for implementing change management actions. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office updates the program schedule to address the leading practices for a reliable schedule identified in this report. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the FEMA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) defines sufficiently detailed planned evaluation methods and actual evaluation methods for assessing security controls. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the FEMA OCIO approves a security assessment plan before security assessment reviews are conducted. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office follows DHS guidance on preparing corrective action plans for all security vulnerabilities. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.

Recommendation: The FEMA Administrator should ensure that the GMM program management office fully tests all of its security controls for the system. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct NAVSEA to incorporate current cost and program data and an updated cost risk analysis in its planned update of the Columbia class lead submarine cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Columbia Class Program cost estimate will be updated in 2019 to support the lead ship authorization Decision Acquisition Board in 2020. As of September 2020, we have yet to receive an update on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct NAVSEA to develop a realistic and well-documented estimate of savings from use of the authorities associated with the Fund and incorporate the savings associated with the lead submarine into the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation, stating that the updated Columbia Class Program cost estimate would incorporate estimated savings from use of the authorities associated with the fund and savings associated with the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. In August 2020, Navy officials indicated that NAVSEA updated the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate to include updates to the estimate of savings from the use of the authorities associated with the Fund.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Columbia class program office to update the lead submarine cost estimate and cost risk analysis prior to requesting funds for lead submarine construction. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, stating that the lead submarine cost estimate and cost risk analysis will be updated to support the lead ship authorization Decision Acquisition Board in 2020. In August 2020, Navy officials indicated that NAVSEA updated the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. However, this estimate was completed after funding was requested for lead submarine construction. While the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation plans to conduct an assessment of this estimate in the summer of 2020, the assessment will also be too late to inform the Navy's funding request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should determine the estimated effects of cost inflation on planned CSCP embassy construction capacity and time frames and update this information for stakeholders on a regular basis, such as through the annual budgeting process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO had developed a worldwide construction inflation rate and had integrated this rate into its bureau budget request for fiscal year 2021. According to OBO officials, OBO is working to update its budget guidance to ensure the inflation rate is updated and integrated into future bureau budget requests on a regular basis. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should ensure that the Director of OBO conducts an OBO-wide workforce analysis to assess staffing levels and workload capacity needed to carry out the full range of OBO's mission goals, to include the CSCP. Such an assessment could provide a basis for broader stakeholder discussion of OBO's human capital needs and potential prioritization of activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO was working with the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an OBO-wide workforce analysis, with initial findings and recommendations planned for early 2020. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the U.S. Seaway Corporation should establish a process to identify, analyze, and monitor risks to the system's use to inform future actions to address those risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, DOT reported that the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is in the process of completing development of its new risk management program and anticipates having a final product that will be implemented by the end of 2020. GAO will continue to monitor the SLSDC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Navy, should direct the polar icebreaker program and NAVSEA 05C to update the HPIB cost estimate in accordance with best practices for cost estimation, including (1) developing risk bounds for all phases of the program lifecycle, and on the basis of these risk bounds, conduct risk and uncertainty analysis, as well as sensitivity analysis, on all phases of the program lifecycle, and (2) reconciling the results with an updated independent cost estimate based on the same technical baseline before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are updating the polar icebreaker program's life cycle cost estimate to reflect information provided by the shipbuilder and anticipate completing the update in the fall 2020. We will review the updated life cycle cost estimate at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct the polar icebreaker program office to develop a program schedule in accordance with best practices for project schedules, including determining realistic durations of all shipbuilding activities and identifying and including a reasonable amount of margin in the schedule, to set realistic schedule goals for all three ships before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they updated the polar icebreaker program's schedule for the lead ship and are in the process of developing schedules for the follow-on ships. We will review the updated schedules once the Coast Guard provides them and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should require the Coast Guard to update the HPIB acquisition program baselines prior to authorizing lead ship construction, after completion of the preliminary design review, and after it has gained the requisite knowledge on its technologies, cost, and schedule, as recommended above. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will require the Coast Guard to update the HPIB program's acquisition program baselines prior to authorizing lead ship construction. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials anticipate updating the acquisition program baselines by no later than February 2021. We will review the updated HPIB acquisition program baselines at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP should analyze the costs associated with future barrier segments and include cost as a factor in the Impedance and Denial Prioritization Strategy. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2018, we reported on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) efforts to construct new physical barriers along the southwest border. We found that the Impedance and Denial Prioritization Strategy--CBP's decision support tool for prioritizing locations for barrier construction projects--did not include analysis of the costs of deploying barriers in each location, which can vary depending on topography, land ownership, and other factors. We recommended that CBP analyze the costs associated with future barrier segments and include cost as a factor in the Impedance and Denial Prioritization Strategy. CBP agreed with this recommendation. CBP officials stated that, after prioritizing locations, CBP conducts detailed cost estimates as part of the acquisitions process. As of January 2020, CBP officials stated that this cost information may affect how the construction projects are executed, but that it would not influence how CBP prioritizes barrier construction projects across various locations. As we have previously reported, organizations should use an integrated approach to the requirements, acquisitions, and budget processes to prioritize needs and allocate resources, so they can optimize return on investment, and maintain program affordability. To fully address our recommendation, Border Patrol needs to incorporate its analysis of the costs of barrier projects into its process for prioritizing locations for construction of barriers.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should work with Congress to include in the Coast Guard's annual 5-year CIP a discussion of the acquisition programs it prioritized that describes how trade-off decisions made could affect other acquisition programs, such as by delaying recapitalization efforts or needing to conduct Service Life Extension Projects for legacy assets. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Coast Guard agreed with this recommendation and in August 2019 officials reported that the Coast Guard is working with DHS to include additional information that addresses how trade-off decisions made could affect other major acquisition programs in future CIP reports. It anticipates including this information in the FY 2021-2025 CIP, which it expects to release in late summer 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should require the Executive Oversight Council, in its role to facilitate a balanced and affordable acquisition portfolio, to annually review the acquisition portfolio collectively, specifically for long-term affordability. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Coast Guard disagreed with this recommendation stating that other bodies within the Coast Guard--such as the Investment Board, Deputies Council, and Investment Review Board--are responsible for making decisions regarding out-year funding, while the Executive Oversight Council works outside of the annual budget process. DHS also stated that, to meet the spirit of our recommendation, the Coast Guard will update the Executive Oversight Council's charter to require a review of the collective acquisition portfolio, specifically evaluating long-term planning. We believe that updating the Executive Oversight Council's charter to include long-term-planning is a positive step. However, we continue to believe that in addition to long-term planning, the Executive Oversight Council should include the major acquisition portfolio's budget realities faced by the Coast Guard in its reviews, or long-term affordability. If the planning accounts for long-term funding considerations to achieve the Coast Guard's acquisition goals and objectives, we believe the intent of our recommendation would be met. The Coast Guard expects to complete the update of the EOC charter by by late summer 2020.

Recommendation: The Director, working with the Study, should ensure that as the Study finalizes its reporting format, it fully incorporates leading practices of performance reporting. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Long Island Sound Study (Study) stated that it has incorporated two leading practices into the reporting format for its progress reports. In addition, the Study website shows the progress toward ecosystem targets compared to the recovery plan, and for a preceding period of time when data are available. According to the Study, EPA hired a contractor to develop a report addressing our recommendations. The Study is using the contractor report to finalize its reporting format and plans to develop an online reporting and tracking system that fully incorporates leading practices of performance reporting. We will review the format of the online tracking system when it becomes available and provide updated information as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Director, working with the Study, should develop cost estimates that include analyses of uncertainties for each of the targets in the 2015 plan. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Study reported that it had hired a contractor to develop a report including the range of costs, including uncertainty bounds, needed to attain each of the targets in the 2015 plan. The contractor has completed its study. Cost estimates for each ecosystem target were developed by adding up the existing cost ranges for each of the implementation actions in the 2015 plan. The report is posted and accessible to the public on the Long Island Sound Study website (https://longislandsoundstudy.net/2019/11/addressing-gaos-recommendations-liss-performance-reporting-and-cost-estimating/). The report contains recommendations for the Study to continue estimating costs in future reports. We are following up with EPA to determine whether the Study will do this.

Recommendation: The Director, working with the Study, should estimate the range of potential costs for all implementation actions and include the estimates in future supplements to the 2015 plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Study said that as part of the Plan 2020-2024 implementation action update, it will include a range of costs for implementation actions. We will review the supplemental documents when they are available and provide updated information as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure the consistent application of the requirement for respondent time costs, including clarifying instructions for when and how to include fringe benefits. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In April 2019, we requested information from OMB on the agency's implementation of our recommendation but as of May 2019 have not received any status updates. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should review the policies, procedures, and related control activities to ensure that the agency's Paperwork Reduction Act review process is operating effectively. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In April 2019, we requested information from OMB on the agency's implementation of our recommendation but as of May 2019 have not received any status updates. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should review the policies, procedures, and related control activities to ensure that the agency's Paperwork Reduction Act review process is operating effectively. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, USDA provided an update on efforts to review its Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) policies and procedures. To ensure that its PRA process is operating effectively, USDA reviewed and updated its internal guidance on preparing information collection request supporting statements, including sections regarding the calculation of respondent burden hour and cost estimates. This updated guidance encourages consultation with potential respondents to help develop these burden estimates. A new PRA consultation checklist directs agency officials to seek input from individuals outside of USDA regarding the agency's burden estimates for an information collection request, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate calculations. The updated guidance specifies that fringe benefits, such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement contributions, should be included in the wage rates used for respondent burden cost estimates. It also clarifies when roundtrip travel time and costs should be included in burden estimates. According to USDA officials, the agency meets with PRA Coordinators to ensure compliance with the updated guidance. These are positive steps toward improving USDA's burden calculation process. However, USDA has not yet provided evidence of a review or revision of its information collection request review process. A review or revision of this process could help USDA better identify errors in burden estimate calculations prior to the final information collection request being sent to OMB and released to the public.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should review the policies, procedures, and related control activities to ensure that the agency's Paperwork Reduction Act review process is operating effectively. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, HHS provided a statement of actions it had taken to address this recommendation. HHS stated that it had added reporting tools to its Common Data Element Repository (CDER) Library that could help improve tracking of information related to HHS's Information Collection Requests. HHS also stated that it had launched daily emails to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) staff to inform them of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Notices of Action related to Information Collection Requests. Additionally, HHS released an information collection burden calculator tool in the CDER Library to give PRA staff the ability to create burden tables for consistent use across multiple platforms for a single Information Collection Request. According to HHS officials, this tool incorporates both wages and employee benefits in the burden calculations. As of August 2019, HHS's burden calculator tool has been included as a resource on PRA.Digital.gov, a new OMB website that serves as a PRA knowledge base for federal staff. While these are important steps, we are awaiting additional details on how these changes have affected HHS's PRA review process. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress toward addressing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should leverage existing consultation with stakeholders and the public to explicitly seek input on the estimated burden imposed by information collections. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, HHS stated that it continues to leverage consultation mechanisms for input on the burdens imposed by information collections. According to the agency, it plans to increase the use of the eRulemaking program's Federal Docket Management System for all information collections, including non-rule Information Collection Requests. HHS also stated it plans to contact stakeholders to discuss potential information collections and receive burden estimates. As of August 9, 2019, we have not received an update about HHS's actions or plans. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should review the policies, procedures, and related control activities to ensure that the agency's Paperwork Reduction Act review process is operating effectively. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should leverage existing consultation with stakeholders and the public to explicitly seek input on the estimated burden imposed by information collections. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider amending the Paperwork Reduction Act to more explicitly require federal agencies to consult with potential respondents on each information collection beyond the publication of Federal Register notices using efficient and effective consultation methods. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2019, no relevant legislation has been enacted. We will continue to monitor legislation to see if it addresses our matter for congressional consideration.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should include enough information in Federal Register notices to allow the public to reasonably calculate or determine the number of respondents, the frequency of response, and the average burden time per response for each information collection activity. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the departmental Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Officer has reviewed the Notice templates and checklist with DOT component PRA Officers during monthly PRA meetings and has applied additional scrutiny in the review process. DOT officials stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance that will include additional aids to support Notice development. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should leverage existing consultation with stakeholders and the public to explicitly seek input on the estimated burden imposed by information collections. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: According to IRS, agency officials met with representatives of external stakeholder organizations on the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) to seek input on the burden experience of their participants and the communities they represent. As a result of these discussions, the IRPAC has added the burden experience as defined by the PRA as a monthly agenda topic for the 2019 session. As of September 2019, IRS officials reported that the IRPAC has not yet met in 2019. Once we receive documentation confirming this action, we will update the status of the recommendation accordingly.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should include enough information in Federal Register notices to allow the public to reasonably calculate or determine the number of respondents, the frequency of response, and the average burden time per response for each information collection activity. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: In October 2018, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reported that it continues to standardize the review process by developing a checklist that ensures all required elements are included in the Federal Register notice. Agency officials stated that the agency will complete the development and delivery of training for employees with responsibility for PRA compliance in fiscal year 2019. We will continue to monitor IRS's progress toward completing these actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 program office to resolve all critical deficiencies before making a full-rate production decision. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that critical deficiencies would be resolved before full-rate production, due in December 2019. In May 2020, we reported that DOD delayed its full-rate production decision from December 2019 to between September 2020 and March 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 program office to identify what steps are needed to ensure the F-35 meets reliability and maintainability requirements before each variant reaches maturity and update the Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program with these steps. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to a DOD official, as of July 2020, the F-35 program office is in the process of revising its plan for improving the F-35's reliability and maintainability.

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 Homeland Security should work with Congress to include O&S data in monthly execution reports at a major acquisition program level within current program/project activity accounts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS agreed with this recommendation and has indicated the OCFO budget division will develop a display that provides major acquisition program level data at the program project activity level by March 30, 2019. As of March 2020, DHS has developed these displays and is working to populate them with all components' data.

Recommendation: The Director of ICE should take steps to document and implement its review process to ensure accuracy in its budget documents.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open

Comments: ICE provided us with documentation showing the agency has implemented a review process to prioritize all agency resource requests and document management approval. As of June 2020, we are awaiting documentation that demonstrates this process has been implemented and provides an assurance of accuracy in ICE's budget documents. We will continue to monitor and evaluate ICE's actions to close this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of ICE should take steps to assess ICE's adult bed rate methodology to determine the most appropriate way to project the adult bed rate, including any inflation rates used.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, ICE is taking steps to assess the adult bed rate methodology. ICE provided a verification and validation assessment on the adult bed rate conducted to meet the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requirements. From the documentation provided, it is unclear that the assessment examines the methodology of the adult bed rate. According to ICE officials, the agency is working towards conducting an analysis on the methodology of the adult bed rate calculations. We will continue to monitor and evaluate ICE's actions to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of ICE should take steps to update ICE's adult bed rate methodology by incorporating necessary changes based on its assessment, and ensure the use of appropriate inflation rates and the removal of family beds from all calculations.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open

Comments: As part of addressing this recommendation, ICE developed a bed rate calculator that the agency stated ensures the use of proper inflation rates and the removal of family beds. ICE provided documentation demonstrating changes to the calculations of the adult bed rate, including the removal of family beds from its budget calculations. As of June 2020, we are awaiting documentation from ICE that demonstrates the use of appropriate inflation rates. We will continue to monitor and evaluate ICE's actions to close this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of ICE should take steps to determine the most appropriate way to project the ADP for use in the congressional budget justification and document the methodology and rationale behind its ADP projection. As part of that determination, ICE should consider the extent to which a statistical model could be used to accurately forecast ADP.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open

Comments: ICE provided us with documentation on the statistical model and its methodology during the course of our review and utilized the model during the fiscal years 2019 and 2020 budget cycles. ICE used the model to provide a point estimate within a specific confidence interval and documented the interval that the agency used and the reasoning behind the use of that interval. As of June 2020, we are following up with ICE regarding the extent to which the model was used to determine the total number of detention beds.

Recommendation: The Director of ICE should take steps to ensure that ICE's budget estimating process more fully addresses cost estimating best practices.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, ICE is taking steps to address this recommendation, and has provided documentation. For example, ICE has developed a sliding bed rate scale from conducting a sensitivity analysis and has detailed some of its calculations and assumptions for the adult bed rate. We will continue to work with ICE to obtain additional documentation needed to evaluate the agency's efforts to improve its detention cost estimating practices.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve its cost estimating guidance by fully incorporating all 12 steps needed for developing high-quality, reliable estimates. DOD stated that it did not believe that it is suitable to fully apply all 12 steps to any construction project due to characteristics of the military construction program that DOD believes differ from those of major system or weapon acquisition programs. However, DOD also stated that it concurred with the intent and general applicability of the twelve steps to military construction and that DOD cost estimating guidance lacks specificity in several of these areas. DOD acknowledged that expanding its cost guidance to more fully incorporate these steps would benefit the military construction program, and told us that it is planning to address this by revising its cost guidance. In our report, we recognize that it may not be appropriate to fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project. For example, it may not be realistic or to the military departments' benefit to conduct a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost projects. Accordingly, we did not recommend that DOD fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project, but rather that it fully incorporate the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria so that, at least, each step is considered for each project. DOD could then choose to establish thresholds-based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects-to determine for which the 12 steps should be fully applied or other circumstances in which some steps might not be applicable. We believe DOD's planned revisions once completed will meet the general intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should revise the scope of the mission need statement to clarify which mission need it seeks to achieve and, as appropriate, adjust the range of options considered in the analysis of alternatives process. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: NNSA disagreed with our recommendation and has not taken steps to implement it. In August 2019, GAO requested an update on the status of the small centrifuge project at Oak Ridge since NNSA officials indicated in May 2019 that the status of the small centrifuge project will impact NNSA's ability to complete the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process by December 2019, as originally planned. Early in calendar year 2020, NNSA announced that completion of the AOA would be delayed to the end of fiscal year 2020. In September 2020, NNSA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further delayed the AOA and that the agency had not determined a revised target date for completion. We will continue monitoring the AOA process and will review the AOA once it is completed to determine whether we can close this recommendation at that time.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should--following clarification of the scope of the mission need statement--ensure that the agency's cost estimates for whichever options it considers going forward are aligned with the scope of the mission need that the enrichment capability is intended to fulfill and that they are developed consistent with best practices. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: NNSA disagreed with our recommendation and has not taken steps to implement it. In August 2019, GAO requested an update on the status of the small centrifuge project at Oak Ridge since NNSA officials indicated in May 2019 that the status of the small centrifuge project will impact NNSA's ability to complete the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process by December 2019, as originally planned. Early in calendar year 2020, NNSA announced that completion of the AOA would be delayed to the end of fiscal year 2020. In September 2020, NNSA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further delayed the AOA and that the agency had not determined a revised target date for completion. We will continue monitoring the AOA process and will review the AOA once it is completed to determine whether we can close this recommendation at that time.

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 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, should re-examine the metrics that it will use to hold the contractor accountable under the fixed-price, performance-based contracts to ensure that such metrics are objectively measurable, are fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics contract. A DOD official said that this group is also working to identify appropriate metrics to hold the contractor accountable under a potential long-term performance-based contract. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to re-examine metrics to ensure that they are objectively measureable, fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, should, prior to entering into multi-year, fixed-price, performance-based contracts, ensure that DOD has sufficient knowledge of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft after baseline development is complete and the system reaches maturity. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics (PBL) contract. As a product of this assessment, DOD expects that the department will be able to outline what level of knowledge is required of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft in order to enter into a PBL sustainment construct. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment that establishes (1) the desired goal for the shipyards' condition and capabilities; (2) an estimate of the full costs to implement the plan, addressing all relevant requirements, external risk factors, and associated planning costs; and (3) metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. Naval Sea Systems Command produced a Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan in February 2018 to guide the overhaul and improvement of the naval shipyards. This plan includes some of the recommended elements but not others. (1) The plan includes some goals for the desired shipyard condition and capabilities including to: recover almost 70 maintenance periods over the next 20 years, modernize capital equipment to industry standards, optimize facilities, and reduce travel time and movement for personnel and materiel during the maintenance process. Navy officials stated the program office is in the process of creating digital maps of the yards to use in modeling facility layouts to identify the optimal layout. The Navy states that the optimal layout will recover 328,000 man days per year, a 65 percent reduction of travel and movement. (2) The report includes a preliminary cost estimate, but work is underway to determine the full costs to address all relevant requirements, risk factors, and planning costs. The plan identifies risks that could increase costs, but does not identify solutions to address those risks. Program officials said they will develop plans to address the risks in subsequent phases of the planning effort. The risks Navy officials identified included historical preservation, environmental regulations, and the need for extra capacity. (3) The plan did not include metrics for assessing progress toward meeting each of the goals. Navy officials stated that they intend to develop metrics to meet this element during a second phase that will be complete in fiscal year 2020.To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy should complete its optimization plan, develop a reliable cost estimate addressing all relevant requirements, risks, and planning costs, and develop metrics to help it assess progress towards meeting its goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should conduct regular management reviews that include all relevant stakeholders to oversee implementation of the plan, review metrics, assess the progress made toward the goal, and make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that the goal is attained. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to conduct regular management reviews. To address this recommendation, the Navy issued NAVSEA Notice 5450 in June 2018. This notice established a new program management office responsible for planning, developing, scheduling, budgeting, and sustaining the replacement of shipyard facilities and equipment. By creating this office, the Navy has taken a first step toward establishing a result-oriented management approach and toward implementing our recommendation to conduct regular management reviews. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, in September 2018, required this new program office to provide regular updates to an Executive Oversight Council. These updates could serve as a foundation to address this recommendation. However, as noted in GAO-20-64, the Navy has faced challenges involving all the relevant stakeholders in the plan's implementation, namely the shipyards. In the absence of clear direction, the shipyards have worked with the program office to develop several informal collaboration mechanisms. For example, the program office and the shipyards have begun several shipyard-specific working groups and hold regular telephone calls. However, until the shipyards are formally involved in the implementation and assessment of the plan, the Navy will be unable to fully meet the direction of this recommendation to involve "all relevant stakeholders."

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress on the progress the shipyards are making to meet the goal of the comprehensive plan, along with any challenges that hinder that progress, such as cost. This may include reporting on progress to reduce their facilities restoration and modernization backlogs, improve the condition and configuration of the shipyards, and recapitalize capital equipment. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress. DOD officials stated in October 2018 that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan, along with the creation of the Readiness Reform Oversight Council, address this recommendation. While the Readiness Reform Oversight Council does appear to involve some of the key stakeholders who should be receiving the regular reporting, the Navy has already made clear that it sees the shipyard optimization process as a 20-year-long effort. Given that, regular reporting on progress cannot be achieved with a single disclosure at the beginning of the effort. Both Congress and DOD decision makers need to receive regular updates on the implementation of the shipyard optimization plan, and while it is possible that the newly created Shipyard Program Management Office will be able to provide such reporting, that organization is still being developed and, as of August 2019, no progress reporting has yet begun.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Recommendation: To strengthen MDA's acquisition efforts and strengthen oversight, and to increase traceability and insight into MDA's test program, the Secretary of Defense should require MDA to (a) include a detailed crosswalk of changes to each test, such as names, planned execution dates, test types, targets, and other modifications, in each iteration of its Integrated Master Test Plan; (b) address deficiencies in its test scheduling policy by better aligning it with best practices for scheduling, including the use of a schedule work breakdown structure (WBS) that clearly traces each activity to the cost WBS, properly assigning resources to schedules, and clarifying guidance on when and how to conduct schedule risk analysis; (c) rectify deficiencies in its element and test level cost estimates by requiring the use of the common test WBS, documenting the traceability of source data, and codifying the processes and associated information for the software application Test Resource Mission Planning-Tool used to create the test level cost estimates in policy; and (d) break out funding requests by test in the BMDS Accountability Report and other budget documentation submitted during the annual budget submission.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The department partially concurred with our recommendation, agreeing to include a detailed crosswalk of changes to each test in the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Integrated Master Test Plan. However, DOD did not concur with the remaining three parts of our recommendation that include steps related to improving scheduling, cost, and reporting on MDA's test program. In August 2020, we observed that MDA had taken actions on our recommendation, such as including more detailed information on changes to the test schedule in its 2018 and 2019 versions of the BMDS Integrated Master Test Plan. We have an ongoing review to assess MDA's program and test cost estimates and plan to review the BMDS Integrated Master Test Plan to determine if the full intent of our recommendation is being met.

Recommendation: To strengthen MDA's acquisition efforts and strengthen oversight, and to improve MDA's requirement-setting process and ensure it includes an appropriate balance between MDA and warfighter priorities, the Secretary of Defense should require MDA to develop a plan to transition operational requirements analysis currently performed within MDA's Achievable Capabilities List to the U.S. Combatant Commanders, with U.S. Strategic Command as the lead entity and, in the interim, require MDA to obtain their concurrence of the Achievable Capabilities List prior to its release.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to allow the warfighter to determine operational-level requirements for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). Although the department disagreed with our recommendation, the Director, MDA informed us in March 2018 that he supported the warfighter providing MDA with operational-level BMDS requirements, provided they are approved by the Combatant Commander for U.S. Strategic Command. The Director, MDA also agreed to obtain U.S. Strategic Command's concurrence on the Achievable Capabilities List prior to its release. Moreover, the January 2019 Missile Defense Review clarified that missile defense requirements are established through the Warfighter Involvement Process, which is governed by U.S. Strategic Command. The review also directed DOD components to evaluate the current missile defense requirements process to ensure that Service and Combatant Commanders' involvement occurs as early as possible in the capabilities development process. According to a U.S. Strategic Command official, in July 2019, the Missile Defense Executive Board agreed with a working group's finding that improvements to the process were needed. In August 2020, U.S. Strategic Command released an update to its instruction that articulates the BMDS Warfighter Involvement Process to address issues identified by the working group. The Director, MDA has also stated in a March 2020 congressional hearing that requirements for the Next Generation Interceptor were coordinated with combatant commanders and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which is a significant and positive development. We intend to evaluate these efforts, as they may potentially satisfy the actions we included in our recommendation.

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: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in the movement of Marine Corps units by, for example, reconsidering when units should move to Guam to minimize leaving facilities vacant.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Marine Corps' plans for the movement of units from Okinawa to Guam has considered many factors, including, among others, the capabilities required to support Pacific Command and the logistical requirements associated with the movement of forces. In March 2020, DOD stated that the Marine Corps and Pacific Command have done extensive planning and analysis to determine how best to posture, move, and support distributed III Marine Expeditionary Force Marines. However, as of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of this analysis. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in training needs in Iwakuni, Hawaii, and CNMI by, for example, identifying other suitable training areas.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has already conducted an extensive analysis of training needs. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in reduction in runway length at the Futenma Replacement Facility by, for example, selecting other runways that would support mission requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD had not identified any additional runways and stated that this is a Government of Japan responsibility. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in challenges in Australia regarding seasonal changes and biosecurity requirements that affect equipment downtime by, for example, deciding on a location for the wet season and identifying a solution for biosecurity requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD stated that no new decisions have been made regarding the Australia rotation. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To provide DOD with reliable information on potential sources of delays for the design and construction of infrastructure in Guam, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to update the Marine Corps' integrated master schedule for Guam so that it meets the comprehensive, well-constructed, and credible characteristics for a reliable schedule. For example, the update to the schedule should include resources for nonconstruction activities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In March 2020, DOD stated that the updated integrated master schedule for Guam conforms to the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide and accounts for the best practices of a reliable schedule. However, as of May 2020, we have not received an updated integrated master schedule that meets the criteria for a reliable schedule.

Recommendation: To provide DOD and Congress with more-reliable information to inform funding decisions associated with the relocation of Marines to Guam, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to revise the cost estimates for Guam to address all best practices established by GAO's cost estimating guide. Specifically, the revisions to the cost estimates should include: a unifying Work Breakdown Structure, risk and sensitivity analyses, and an independent cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD nonconcurred with this recommendation. In March 2020, DOD stated that the department does not accept the assertion that GAO's best practices for cost estimates are universally applicable to a wide range of activities that includes military construction, acquisition, or basing. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To provide DOD and Congress with more-reliable information to inform funding decisions associated with the relocation of Marines to Hawaii and the establishment of a rotational presence in Australia, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to revise the DOD cost estimates for Hawaii to address all best practices for the comprehensive characteristic established by the GAO cost estimating guide, specifically to capture entire life-cycle costs and develop a Work Breakdown Structure.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD stated that it continues to update its cost estimates for the Hawaii program in line with GAO's cost estimating guide but did not agree that detailed cost estimates are required at this early planning stage to make decisions in the 2026 timeframe and beyond. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To provide DOD and Congress with more-reliable information to inform funding decisions associated with the relocation of Marines to Hawaii and the establishment of a rotational presence in Australia, the Secretary of Defense should revise the DOD cost estimates for Australia to address all best practices for the comprehensive characteristic established by the GAO cost estimating guide, specifically to capture entire life-cycle costs and develop a Work Breakdown Structure.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD stated that it continues to update its cost estimates for the Australia program in line with GAO's cost estimating guide. However, DOD stated that since Australia will build or provide much of the infrastructure enhancements in support of the Marine Corps, cost estimates will not incorporate the construction costs. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To increase the likelihood that its IT investments develop reliable cost estimates, the Secretary of HUD should finalize, and ensure the implementation of, guidance that incorporates the best practices called for in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2017, HUD reported that the department concurred with the recommendation and noted that the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) intended to establish cost estimation guidance for IT projects within its IT Management Framework Guide, incorporating appropriate best practices from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. In March 2019, HUD reported that, with contractor assistance, the department had begun to develop a standard methodology for investment lifecycle cost estimation; however, the methodology had not been fully institutionalized across all investments, and a policy for cost estimation had not been developed. Lacking an updated IT Management Framework and cost estimation policy, OCIO took additional interim action in the most recent budget cycle to reduce cost estimation risk by having the Chief Technology Officer standardize the cost estimates for IT investments. HUD continues to take action intended to address this recommendation; however, OCIO has not yet finalized a cost estimation methodology or the associated policy for IT investments or established a timeframe for implementing cost estimation practices departmentwide.

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should assess and improve, as necessary, the quality of data and methods used to forecast borrower incomes, and revise the forecasting method to account for inflation in estimates.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Education agreed to assess and improve its borrower income data, and adjust incomes for inflation. In model documentation prepared in advance of the agency's fiscal year 2017 financial statements, Education acknowledged problems in the estimated borrower income data it used to estimate income-driven repayment (IDR) plan costs, and said it was working to obtain access to actual borrower income data for use in its cost estimates. Education implemented part of this recommendation by adjusting borrower incomes for inflation, which caused a downward re-estimate of IDR plan costs totaling $17.1 billion. GAO will monitor Education's progress in implementing the other part of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should complete efforts to incorporate repayment plan switching into the agency's redesigned student loan model, and conduct testing to help ensure that the model produces estimates that reasonably reflect trends in Income-Driven Repayment plan participation.

Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Education (Education) agreed to incorporate repayment plan switching into its redesigned student loan model, reiterating that efforts to incorporate this capability into a new microsimulation model had begun despite challenges inherent in predicting borrower behavior. However, Education's current student loan model still does not allow for estimating the effects of repayment plan switching. In the interim, Education updated its repayment plan selection assumption to more accurately reflect recent trends in income-driven repayment plan participation. GAO will monitor the progress of Education's efforts to implement the planned model redesign with the capability to incorporate plan switching behavior.

Recommendation: As DOD assesses potential cost savings under the Defense Resale Business Optimization Board or through other cost savings initiatives identified, the Secretary of Defense, with assistance as necessary from the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Chief Executive Officer of the Navy Exchange Service Command, and the Marine Corps Exchange, should provide information to Congress that includes data, assumptions, and methodology supporting DOD's conclusion for not achieving budget neutrality.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: As DOD assesses potential cost savings under the Defense Resale Business Optimization Board or through other cost savings initiatives identified, the Secretary of Defense, with assistance as necessary from the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Chief Executive Officer of the Navy Exchange Service Command, and the Marine Corps Exchange, should develop a plan with assumptions, a methodology, cost estimates, and specific time frames for achieving alternative reductions to appropriations, to support DOD's efforts to ensure that DOD's cost savings target is feasible and accurate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. In 2017, DOD officials told us that they would include information about assumptions, a methodology, cost estimates, and timelines for achieving alternative reductions, but they were unable to provide any documentation of progress made.

Recommendation: As DOD conducts pilot programs, the Secretary of Defense, with assistance as necessary from the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Defense Commissary Agency, the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Chief Executive Officer of the Navy Exchange Service Command, and the Marine Corps Exchange, should identify specific metrics to determine whether DOD has fulfilled the mandated requirement to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction, the provision of high-quality products, and the sustainment of patron savings.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.

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

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

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

Recommendation: To determine whether CSA interventions influence motor carrier safety performance, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to identify and implement, as appropriate, methods to evaluate the effectiveness of individual intervention types or common intervention patterns to obtain more complete, appropriate, and accurate information on the effectiveness of interventions in improving motor carrier safety performance. In identifying and implementing appropriate methods, FMCSA should incorporate accepted practices for designing program effectiveness evaluations, including practices that would enable FMCSA to more confidently attribute changes in carriers' safety behavior to CSA interventions.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FMCSA has reviewed the methodology for its effectiveness model and identified many of the same limitations GAO discussed in its report. FMCSA also identified several approaches to address these limitations, including modifying its model to measure individual intervention types. However, as of July 2020, FMCSA had not implemented any of its proposed approaches.

Recommendation: To enable FMCSA management to monitor the agency's progress in achieving its effectiveness and efficiency outcomes for CSA interventions and balance priorities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to establish and use performance measures to regularly monitor progress toward both FMCSA's effectiveness outcome and its efficiency outcome.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) plans to establish an inventory of effectiveness and efficiency measures and monitor performance on an ongoing basis. FMCSA is working to modify its model to measure the effectiveness of individual intervention types. However, as of July 2020, it had not implemented any of its proposed modifications.

Recommendation: To fully assess the size and composition of the medical force, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to conduct a new analysis of the required number of active-duty and civilian medical personnel that mitigates known limitations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. In response to a provision in Senate Report 115-125, we assessed DOD's interim and final draft responses to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to assess the required number of wartime medical and dental personnel. In our ensuing February 2019 report, we found that DOD had not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress. Specifically, leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. We found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. Further, although not required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD's assessment did not include civilian medical personnel. Until DOD completes such an analysis, it cannot be assured that its medical force is appropriately sized.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to take steps to identify and mitigate limitations regarding the standard for maintaining providers' clinical skills, including improving the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload and conducting an analytically rigorous calculation of active-duty providers' time devoted to military-specific responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In February 2019, we reported that DOD had begun work on a metric to assess the clinical readiness of providers, but noted that the department's methodology was limited. In particular, the methodology did not provide complete, accurate, and consistent data or fully demonstrate results. Further, although DOD provided documentation in February 2020 outlining the medical specialties to which its clinical readiness metric would apply, it has not fully budgeted for the cost of implementing the metric. DOD's July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 notes steps taken to assess the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload, but does not address the time active-duty providers devote to military-specific responsibilities. Until DOD addresses these issues, its efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards will remain limited.

Recommendation: To help achieve DOD's goals for transferring health care into its own facilities and increasing the productivity of active-duty medical providers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to develop a strategy for achieving these goals that reflects the leading practices of effective federal strategic planning.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts within DOD to address the Study's recommendations to use the provider model outputs to inform execution of health care delivery and to refine the model for future use, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to modify DOD's model to reflect the military service of the physicians and military treatment facilities included in the model.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020 DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD stated in response to this recommendation that facilities in several large Military Health System (MHS) markets are staffed in a multi-service manner. While this is an important point, it remains true that, as the report notes, DOD's model "assumed uniformed providers were interchangeable," and that such an approach does not reflect the single-service nature of most medical treatment facilities within the MHS. Until DOD's model reflects this, the results of its approach will continue to be limited.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to describe steps taken to assess the reliability of data supporting the assessment, including, at a minimum, the sources of data, data limitations, and efforts to test data reliability.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD included the sources of its data and some data limitations, but not efforts to test data reliability. Until DOD fully incorporates assessments of data reliability into its analysis of future changes to the Military Health System, such as its implementation plan Section 703, it will continue to lack assurance that its approach is fully supported by reliable information.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to include in any accompanying cost estimates an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, DOD's plan to restructure MTFs in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD concluded that civilian health care was more cost-effective than care in its MTFs without considering other assumptions that could affect its conclusions. For example, DOD applied assumptions about the cost of military personnel salaries, MTF workloads, and reimbursement rates for TRICARE that likely underestimated the cost-effectiveness of MTFs. Until DOD's approach to assessing changes to its network of MTFs is accompanied by cost estimates with an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate, its approach will remain limited.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress and NASA a reliable estimate of program cost and schedule that are useful to support management and stakeholder decisions, the NASA Administrator should direct the Orion program to perform an updated JCL analysis including updating cost and schedule estimates in adherence with cost and schedule estimating best practices.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that the agency reviewed, in detail, the Orion integrated cost/schedule and risk analysis methodology and determined the rigor to be a sufficient basis for the agency commitments. In November 2019, Orion program officials told us that in response to a recent policy change, the program office will update its joint confidence level analysis when the program has its 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 will need to provide evidence that it updated its joint confidence level analysis when the Orion program holds its Key Decision Point D review.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a reliable JIE cost estimate and baseline, consistent with the best practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) was responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department approved a cost baseline for one of the components of JIE, the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), and developed a cost estimate for another component, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services (ECAPS) program. The ECAPS cost estimate was substantially consistent with the practices described in the report. However, the JRSS cost estimate was not developed consistent with the best practices described in the report. Specifically, the department did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps in the JRSS cost estimate; however, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation. The officials also stated that planning for JIE components other than JRSS and ECAPS had not begun; therefore, there were no other JIE component cost estimates. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a JIE schedule management plan and reliable schedule, consistent with practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network part of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) component; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In addition, In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that another JIE initiative, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services program, had an approved baseline schedule. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the schedule.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a JRSS schedule management plan and reliable JRSS schedule and schedule baseline, consistent with practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network component of JRSS; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO said that the JRSS schedule had not been re-baselined and the department had not developed a schedule management plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to complete an assessment to determine the number of staff and the specific skills and abilities needed to effectively achieve JIE, consistent with the workforce planning practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to implement it; however, more needs to be done. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department has developed an inventory of cybersecurity knowledge and skills of existing staff. Specifically, we reported in our June 2018 report Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Improve Baseline Assessments and Procedures for Coding Positions (GAO-18-466) that the department had developed an assessment that included the percentage of cybersecurity personnel holding certifications and the level of preparedness of personnel without existing credentials to take certification exams. In August 2018, the office of the DOD CIO stated that the department planned to identify work roles of critical need and establish gap assessment and mitigation strategies by April 2019. However, as of July 2019, the department had not provided an update on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that describes the resources needed to execute the strategy, responsible organizations, and a schedule to complete the assessments.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of August 2018, it has not provided evidence that it has addressed it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In May 2019, the office of the DOD CIO stated that it had developed a schedule to complete JIE security assessments. However, as of July 2019, the office had not provided the schedule or demonstrated that it has a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that includes the rest of the elements of our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department achieve the benefits anticipated from JIE, the Secretary should direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to develop a reliable Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) cost estimate and baseline, consistent with practices described in this report.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however it has not fully implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, in April 2017, the JRSS program office documented the methodology, ground rules and assumptions, among other things, used to develop the cost estimate we reviewed in our report, and the JIE Executive Committee established the estimate as its JRSS cost baseline. However, the cost estimate documentation was not sufficient to address our recommendation. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation.

Recommendation: To ensure Bureau and congressional confidence that the Bureau's budgeted contingencies are at appropriate levels, the Secretary of Commerce and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs should direct the Census Bureau to improve control over how risk and uncertainty are accounted for and communicated with the Bureau's decennial cost estimation process, such as by implementing and institutionalizing processes or methods for doing so with clear guidance.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. Specifically, we reported that the Bureau should ensure that its budget for contingencies for the 2020 Census reflect an accurate accounting of risk and uncertainty. In doing this, the Bureau should improve controls over risk and uncertainty in the cost estimate process, and institutionalize these controls by providing clear methods for their use. In July 2018, we completed a review of documentation to support the updated October 2017 cost estimate and found that the Bureau performed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on the estimate and appropriately added funding into the cost estimate to reflect inherent uncertainty and to account for specific risks. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to link specific risks to funds set aside in the $1.2 billion general risk contingency fund. Therefore, as of January 2020, this recommendation remains valid and should be addressed: that the Bureau properly account for risk in the 2020 Census cost estimate.

Recommendation: To ensure that risks associated with ALIS are addressed expediently and holistically, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer to improve the reliability of its cost estimates, conduct uncertainty and sensitivity analyses consistent with cost-estimating best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, this recommendation conflicts with established Office of the Under Secretary of Defense/Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation guidance for cost estimation and uncertainty analysis. Absent a change in policy at that level, the Joint Program Office will continue to follow Office of the Under Secretary of Defense/Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation policy on this issue. We continue to believe that in order for any risks associated with ALIS to be addressed expediently and holistically, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis must be used on the F-35s cost estimates to improve its overall reliability. Thus, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that risks associated with ALIS are addressed expediently and holistically, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer to improve the reliability of its cost estimates, ensure that future estimates of ALIS costs use historical data as available and reflect significant program changes consistent with cost-estimating best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD officials, since April 2016, the F-35 program has continued to update the ALIS estimate with the latest available cost data, based on recent contracts. Until more reliable actual costs become available, the program utilizes negotiated contract costs, incorporates program initiatives, and ensures the estimate reflects the latest technical baseline and requirements. Until actual costs associated with ALIS historical data are incorporated in the F-35 cost estimate, we believe that the estimate will not be as reliable as it could be. For this reason, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to enhance screening of loan guarantee applicants, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to complete steps to obtain access to Treasury's Do Not Pay portal and establish policies and procedures to deny loan guarantees to applicants who are subject to administrative offsets for delinquent child support payments.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said that implementing the recommendation would require a rule change and that it anticipated publishing a proposed rule by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen oversight of lenders and servicers, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop and publish in the Federal Register qualification requirements for the principal officers of lenders and servicers seeking initial or continued approval to participate in the guarantee program.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said it anticipated publishing a proposed rule to implement this recommendation by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen oversight of lenders and servicers, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop and publish in the Federal Register capital and financial requirements for guarantee program lenders that are not regulated by a federal financial institution regulatory agency.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said it anticipated publishing a proposed rule to implement this recommendation by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen risk assessment and reporting, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to improve performance measures comparing RHS and the Federal Housing Administration loan performance, potentially by making comparisons on a cohort basis and limiting comparisons to loans made in similar geographic areas.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said it was working with a contractor to establish more meaningful performance measures and estimated a completion date of December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen risk assessment and reporting, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop risk thresholds for the guarantee program, potentially in the form of maximum portfolio- or loan-level loss tolerances.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: Rural Development hired a contractor to help establish risk thresholds for the guarantee program. The contractor's October 2016 report developed and recommended portfolio-level and loan-level risk thresholds (values that trigger consideration of policy adjustments) and also recommended that program officials conduct stress tests to validate that each recommended risk threshold was appropriate for the program's overall risk appetite. As of August 2020, Rural Development said it was continuing to work with the contractor to stress test the risk thresholds and estimated a completion date of December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to more effectively fulfill the requirements for conducting program reviews described in OMB Circular A-129, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop procedures for selecting RD credit programs for review based on risk and establish a prioritized schedule for conducting the reviews.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said that its Chief Risk Officer was working with the agency on establishing procedures for selecting Rural Development credit programs for review based on risk, including a prioritized schedule. Rural Development estimated a completion date of June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To better ensure that taxpayer funds are being used effectively, Congress should consider permanently rescinding any Treasury-deobligated excess MHA balances that Treasury does not move into the Hardest Hit Fund.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action identified, as of July 22, 2020. Congress has not yet taken any action to rescind excess MHA balances, as recommended in GAO's March 2016 report. According to Treasury, it took action on July 27, 2018, to deobligate $4.0 billion MHA program funds beyond the $2 billion that it had previously deobligated and transferred to the Troubled Asset Relief Program-funded Hardest Hit Fund in February 2016. As a result of Treasury's deobligated action, Congress now has the opportunity to rescind and use the funds for other priorities.

Recommendation: As part of its lease reform efforts and to increase possible cost savings, the GSA Administrator should seek to reduce leasing costs for federal agencies by allowing tenant agencies the option of choosing non-cancelable occupancy agreements with lower administrative costs, particularly for leases with firm terms of 5 years or less.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2018, GSA officials said that they were unlikely to implement this recommendation because it would shift costs from the tenants to GSA but not reduce overall costs. GAO continues to believe that reducing unnecessary costs to tenant agencies would reduce overall leasing costs by encouraging GSA to be more efficient.

Recommendation: To assist in determining whether to require USPS and PRC to report on delivery performance for rural and non-rural areas, Congress should direct USPS to provide cost estimates related to providing this information.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken any action to direct USPS to provide cost estimates related to reporting on delivery performance for rural and non-rural areas

Recommendation: To more accurately communicate DHS's funding plans for USCG's major acquisition programs, the Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure the funding plans presented to Congress in fiscal year 2015 are comprehensive and clearly account for all operations and maintenance funding DHS plans to allocate to each of the USCG's major acquisition programs.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with this recommendation and stated in their comments that the U.S. Coast Guard and the DHS Chief Financial Officer will develop a plan to address this recommendation by September 30, 2015, then work together to fully implement the plan. DHS estimated it would complete this effort March 31, 2016. However, the USCG encountered technical challenges during this process and was unable to implement the plan by that time. The U.S. Coast Guard has revised the estimated completion date and now anticipates it will be able to address this recommendation in fiscal year 2022. GAO will continue to assess the updated APBs as a part of its annual review of select DHS major acquisition programs to determine whether the department has addressed the recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to include in the CMS Compare websites, to the extent feasible, estimated out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries for common treatments that can be planned in advance.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to organize cost and quality information in the CMS Compare websites to facilitate consumer identification of the highest-performing providers, such as by listing providers in order based on their performance.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to include in the CMS Compare websites the capability for consumers to customize the information presented, to better focus on information relevant to them.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to develop specific procedures and performance metrics to ensure that CMS's efforts to promote the development and use of its own and others' transparency tools adequately address the needs of consumers.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agencies report comparable and reliable data to Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI), the Director of OPM, in coordination with agencies and payroll service providers, should develop guidance for agencies on which activities to enter, or not enter, as paid administrative leave in agency time and attendance systems.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: To address agency use of paid administrative leave that may exceed reasonable amounts as well as discrepancies in recording and reporting paid administrative leave, in December 2016, Congress passed the "Administrative Leave Act of 2016." The act mandates new categories of paid leave, including "investigative leave," "notice leave," and "weather and safety leave" and sets limitations on the duration of paid administrative leave as well as the new categories of investigative and notice leave. The Act also requires OPM to establish regulations on (1) when to grant administrative leave and the other new categories of paid leave, and (2) the proper recording and reporting of these types of paid leave. In July 2017, OPM proposed new rules to regulate paid administrative leave, but has not finalized all these rules. In April 2018, OPM issued final regulations for "weather and safety leave" and announced that it would issue separate final regulations for "administrative leave," "investigative leave," and "notice leave" at a later date. In July 2019, OPM officials told us that they have not finalized the remaining regulations due to legal and practical concerns related to employees serving overseas. For example, the proposed rules could conflict with overseas personnel observing local holidays for security, diplomatic, and practical reasons. OPM also announced that it is reconvening its interagency working group for dismissal and closure procedures to update its "DC Dismissal and Closure Procedures" guidance to reflect the new "weather and safety leave" procedures. In addition, in response to our recommendation, in May 2015, OPM issued a fact sheet on administrative leave, which discusses the appropriate use of an agency's administrative leave authority, including a definition of administrative leave as well as applicable government-wide, individual agency, and emergency policies on the use of administrative leave. However, this fact sheet will need to be revised to reflect the newly issued regulations for "weather and safety leave" in addition to the regulations for the other categories of paid leave when they are in effect. Once all regulations are finalized, the proposed rules, along with updated fact sheet guidance, should help agencies and federal employees appropriately use, record, and report administrative leave. We will be contacting OPM to receive an update on the status of this recommendation once all the regulations are finalized and the fact sheet guidance is revised.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agencies report comparable and reliable data to EHRI, the Director of OPM, in coordination with agencies and payroll service providers, should provide updated and specific guidance to payroll service providers on which activities to report, or not report, to the paid administrative leave data element in EHRI.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: To address agency use of paid administrative leave that may exceed reasonable amounts as well as discrepancies in recording and reporting paid administrative leave, in December 2016, Congress passed the "Administrative Leave Act of 2016." The act mandates new categories of paid leave, including "investigative leave," "notice leave," and "weather and safety leave" and sets limitations on the duration of paid administrative leave as well as the new categories of investigative and notice leave. The Act also requires OPM to establish regulations on (1) when to grant administrative leave and the other new categories of paid leave, and (2) the proper recording and reporting of these types of paid leave. In July 2017, OPM proposed new rules to regulate paid administrative leave, but has not finalized all these rules. In April 2018, OPM issued final regulations for "weather and safety leave" and announced that it would issue separate final regulations for "administrative leave," "investigative leave," and "notice leave" at a later date. To accompany the final regulations for "weather and safety leave," OPM issued two new data standards for agencies to report Paid Holiday Time Off and Weather and Safety Leave Hours Used that became effective in May 2018. Also, in November 2018, OPM released an update to its "DC Dismissal and Closure Procedures" guidance to reflect the new "weather and safety leave" procedures. Once all regulations are finalized, the proposed rules, along with updated guidance to payroll providers for reporting paid administrative leave and the new leave categories, should help agencies report comparable and reliable data to EHRI. We will be contacting OPM to receive an update on the status of this recommendation once the regulations are finalized and the guidance is revised.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to enable DOD to better identify, address, and mitigate performance issues with the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that could have an effect on affordability, as well as readiness, to establish a performance-measurement process for ALIS that includes, but is not limited to, performance metrics and targets that (1) are based on intended behavior of the system in actual operations and (2) tie system performance to user requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, plans are emerging between the services and the Joint Program Office on a path forward for ALIS, focusing on both the current iteration of ALIS and the future state. Going forward, the services and the Joint Program Office are developing plans for the necessary re-architecture of ALIS. Once these current improvements and future requirements are finalized, appropriate performance metrics, tying system performance in operations environments to user requirements, will be incorporated. As of January 2020, DOD officials stated that there was no update to this status. Although DOD has a way ahead as it relates to developing performance metrics for ALIS, DOD has yet to develop any metrics that are based on intended behavior of the system and tie system performance to user requirements. Until DOD takes this action, our recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to develop a high level of confidence that the aircraft will achieve its R+M goals, to develop a software reliability and maintainability (R+M) assessment process, with metrics, by which the program can monitor and determine the effect that software issues may have on overall F-35 R+M issues.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, the department and the Joint Program Office, as part of their focus on agile software development, are working to incorporate software reliability and maintainability metrics into future software development and sustainment contracts. Some of the proposed metrics under consideration include: change failure rate; number of errors in developmental/user/operational testing; time to fix on critical errors; and mean time to restore. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that there was no update to this status. Although attention is being paid to software Reliability & Maintainability, until DOD develops a process focused on software and its effects on overall Reliability & Maintainability issues, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to promote competition, address affordability, and inform its overarching sustainment strategy, to develop a long-term Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy to include, but not be limited to, the identification of (1) current levels of technical data rights ownership by the federal government and (2) all critical technical data needs and their associated costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of January 2020, in the updated F-35 Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) issued in January 2019, "Secure Use of Appropriate Technical Data" was one of the identified elements of success necessary to improve F-35 readiness and reduce sustainment costs. As part of the ongoing Plans of Action & Milestones (POAM) implementation process for the LCSP success elements, the F-35 Joint Program Office is working with the OEMs to determine the data rights the government already has, and to determine the specific technical data the government needs, and what it needs that data to accomplish. Significant progress has been made on both fronts with the prime contractor. We acknowledge that progress surrounding technical data rights is being made; however, until an Intellectual Property strategy is developed and released, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to conduct the following assessments and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans: (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest information on DHS headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading capital planning practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to conduct the following assessments and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans: (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150), enacted on April 29, 2016, mirrors GAO recommendations in this area. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. We will review the latest information on DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of these recommendations at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading practices for capital planning and cost and schedule estimation is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, after revising the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, after revising the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: Congress should consider making future funding for the St. Elizabeths project contingent upon DHS and GSA developing a revised headquarters consolidation plan, for the remainder of the project, that conforms with leading practices and that (1) recognizes changes in workplace standards, (2) identifies which components are to be colocated at St. Elizabeths and in leased and owned space throughout the National Capital Region, and (3) develops and provides reliable cost and schedule estimates.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of March 2019, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes: a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region; an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project; and updated cost and schedule estimates for the project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. A comprehensive report to Congress on DHS headquarters consolidation, along with reliable project cost and schedule estimates, could inform Congress's funding decisions.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is better informed in its decision-making processes, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to utilize comprehensive and up-to-date furlough cost-savings information as it becomes available in the event that DOD decides to implement another administrative furlough in the future.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, but did not elaborate as to why. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented an administrative furlough since our 2014 report nor has it produced any guidance regarding the recommendation. We will continue to monitor for the development of guidance or a potential DOD administrative furlough.

Recommendation: To reduce uncertainty about the expected cost and schedule of the U.S. ITER Project and its potential impact on the U.S. fusion program, once the ITER Organization completes its reassessment of the international project schedule, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Associate Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to use that schedule, if reliable, to propose a final, stable funding plan for the U.S. ITER Project, approve a performance baseline with finalized cost and schedule estimates, and communicate this information to Congress.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE approved a performance baseline for the first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project in January 2017 and communicated that performance baseline to Congress. However, as of June 2020, DOE has not set a performance baseline for the post-first plasma portion of the project. DOE officials told us the Administration was reviewing U.S. participation in ITER. They said that if, at the end of the review, the Administration decided to continue U.S. participation in ITER, then DOE would set a performance baseline for the post-first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project.

Recommendation: To reduce uncertainty about the expected cost and schedule of the U.S. ITER Project and its potential impact on the U.S. fusion program, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Associate Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to direct the U.S. ITER Project Office to revise and update the project's cost estimate to meet all characteristics of high-quality, reliable cost estimates. Specifically, the U.S. ITER Project Office should revise the project's cost estimate to ensure it is credible by including a comprehensive sensitivity analysis that includes all significant cost elements and conducting an independent cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE revised and updated the cost estimate for the first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project in November 2016. Officials reported that, as part of that update, the U.S. ITER Project Office completed a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and that the Office of Science's Office of Project Assessment had conducted a review of the revised cost estimate. However, as of June 2020, DOE had yet to revise and update the cost estimate for the post-first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project. DOE officials told us they planned to do so when they set a performance baseline for that portion of the project, which they expected to do if, at the end of an ongoing review, the Administration decided to continue U.S. participation in ITER.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish a separate cost and schedule baseline for work required to support the SLS Block I Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) and report this information to the Congress through NASA's annual budget submission. If NASA decides to fly the SLS Block I beyond EM-2, establish separate life cycle cost and schedule baseline estimates for those efforts, to include funding for operations and sustainment, and report this information annually to Congress via the agency's budget submission.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it defined and documented life-cycle costs for SLS to a first demonstrated capability, consistent with cost estimating best practices and NASA project and program management policy and that it would report costs associated with the second exploration mission via its annual budget submission. In January 2020, NASA stated that it is evaluating changes to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements," to better enable the necessary insight into program affordability and efficient monitoring of total program costs and execution for multi-year, multi-cadence type programs. Further, NASA stated that it is investigating plans to redefine performance expectations for multi-decade programs' formal commitments while maintaining visibility to the entire plan. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for work required to support SLS for EM-2, which is now known as Artemis II.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, because NASA intends to use the increased capabilities of the SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations efforts well into the future and has chosen to estimate costs associated with achieving the capabilities, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional capability that encompass all life cycle costs, to include operations and sustainment. When NASA cannot fully specify costs due to lack of well-defined missions or flight manifests, forecast a cost estimate range -- including life cycle costs -- having minimum and maximum boundaries. These baselines or ranges should be reported to Congress annually via the agency's budget submission.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it had established separate programs for SLS, Orion, and the ground systems and adopted a block upgrade approach for SLS. In January 2020, NASA stated that it plans to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to provide evidence that it established separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations capability blocks that encompass all life-cycle costs, including operations and sustainment.

Recommendation: To improve the acquisition management of the Plan and the reliability of its cost estimates and schedules, assess the effectiveness of deployed technologies, and better inform CBP's deployment decisions, once data on asset assists are required to be recorded and tracked, the Commissioner of CBP should analyze available data on apprehensions and seizures and technological assists, in combination with other relevant performance metrics or indicators, as appropriate, to determine the contribution of surveillance technologies to CBP's border security efforts.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In 2014, CBP expanded its Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan to the Southwest Border Technology Plan. In February 2015, the Border Patrol took steps to address this recommendation by developing the Capability Gap Analysis Process (CGAP) with the support of Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Lab to examine the effects of technology and other assets. In May 2017, Border Patrol officials demonstrated a new system, intended to allow for more comprehensive analysis of the contributions of surveillance technologies to Border Patrol's mission during the CGAP process. As of March 2019, Border Patrol is now able to generate a performance report, using data collected from multiple systems, on how surveillance technologies have assisted agents during operations, including Border Patrol apprehensions. In February 2020 Border Patrol officials stated the data gathered in the report were reliable. They also provided examples of how they use available performance data to help identify gaps in capabilities and inform future investments in surveillance technologies. Border Patrol officials are also developing a surveillance capability score intended to represent the combined contributions of individual technology assets and agents on patrol to conduct surveillance in a given area. Border Patrol plans to report this score in fiscal year 2021, according to documentation provided by Border Patrol. We view these efforts, as described, as important progress toward fulfilling our recommendation, and will review the planned surveillance capability score once it is implemented to determine whether Border Patrol has fully implemented our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help maintain a more thorough and insightful 2020 Census development schedule in order to better manage risks to a successful 2020 Census, the Secretary of Commerce and Undersecretary of Economic Affairs should direct the U.S. Census Bureau to improve the credibility of schedules, including conducting a quantitative risk assessment.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Bureau agreed with this recommendation and stated that it had already begun maturing project schedules to ensure that the logical relationships between discrete schedules were put into place. Schedule integration sessions across projects and programs were held in late January 2014 and into February 2014 and periodically since then, where work was deconstructed into detailed schedules. The Bureau released its operational plan and other documentation in November 2015 and announced in June 2016 that it would finalize and release its 2020 Census schedule in July 2016. In 2015, the Bureau provided us with a preliminary output from its risk analysis software as a demonstration of the type of analysis it had committed to, but since then its officials have said that they will not be able to take all the steps needed to satisfy this recommendation for the 2020 Census. The Bureau took steps toward conducting quantitative schedule risk analyses with its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules in order to conduct such analyses is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps to carry out quantitative risk assessments of its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.

Recommendation: If cost savings are to be a goal of any future BRAC round, Congress may wish to consider amending the BRAC statute by elevating the priority DOD and the BRAC Commission give to potential costs and savings as a selection criterion for making base closure and realignment recommendations.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: If Congress authorizes additional BRAC rounds, it may wish to consider amending BRAC legislation by requiring the Secretary of Defense to formally establish specific goals that the department expects to achieve from a future BRAC process.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: If Congress authorizes additional BRAC rounds, it may wish to consider amending BRAC legislation by requiring the Secretary of Defense to propose selection criteria as necessary to help achieve those goals, if necessary and appropriate.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: If Congress decides to authorize a future base closure round, it may want to consider whether to limit or prohibit the BRAC Commission from adding a contingent element to any recommendation and, if permitted, under what conditions.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: To enhance NNSA's ability to better ensure the validity of its budget submissions, and to decide on resource trade-offs, the Secretary of Energy should direct the DOE Office of Budget to formally evaluate DOE Order 130.1 and revise as necessary, and communicate any revisions to the NNSA Administrator so that the agency will have updated provisions for assessing the quality of its budget estimates.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: According to DOE's audit tracking system report, for the period ending 1/28/16, DOE Office of Budget was evaluating and revising DOE Order 130.1 as necessary to include planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation (PPBE). The report states that the Office of Budget will communicate revisions to NNSA as appropriate with an estimated completion date of 9/30/16. According to a previous tracking system report, Order 130.1 was updated and placed in the management review process some time between 6/30/13, and 9/30/13. According to DOE, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer implemented a new funding execution system on 10/1/16. The development and implementation of the new system has delayed revision of DOE Order 130.1. The new system will impact the budget practices, planning, policies and processes content that will be outlined in the revised DOE 130.1. As of 6/30/20, DOE's Directives Review Board established an Integrated Project Team to revise the Department's Budget Formulation and Budget Execution Directives. Final approval of the revised guidance is anticipated by 9/30/20.

Recommendation: As HHS implements its current and forthcoming efforts to make transparent price information available to consumers, HHS should determine the feasibility of making estimates of complete costs of health care services available to consumers through any of these efforts.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2013, CMS released average inpatient hospital charge information for more than 3,000 hospitals that receive Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System payments for the 100 most frequently billed discharges using DRGs from FY2011 and corresponding average Medicare payments. Shortly thereafter CMS also released outpatient charges. In April 2014, CMS also released data on payments to physicians under Medicare part B. This represents an effort to provide price transparency, although these are not complete cost estimates according to our definition in this report. As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: As HHS implements its current and forthcoming efforts to make transparent price information available to consumers, HHS should determine, as appropriate, the next steps for making estimates of complete costs of health care services available to consumers.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and to improve the transparency and usefulness of cost analyses prepared for future NNSA nuclear facilities modernization projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that life cycle cost analyses include a thorough and balanced evaluation of short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives. Such analyses should consider the full useful life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirement for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time that might produce results that favor one option over another.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and because of the importance of mitigating the risks of outsourcing nuclear weapons components and other information that if exported, might allow potential adversaries to develop or advance their nuclear capabilities, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to take immediate action to assess the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of KCP's current export control and nonproliferation practices and, if appropriate, initiate corrective actions to strengthen that oversight.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.