Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Cost savings"
GAO-20-567, Sep 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
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.
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.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-20-451, Jun 24, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation. In comments on a draft of the report, DOE stated that NPO plans to work with CNS on a plan for the remaining reinvestment funds, with an estimated completion date of December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA concurred, in principle, with the recommendation. In its comments on a draft of the report, NNSA stated that potential benefits of the cost savings program should be considered for future contracts, as applicable. NNSA stated that it believes this recommendation is closed with actions to address other recommendations. We disagree and continue to believe that NNSA should document an analysis of the cost savings program, including its cost effectiveness, to determine the exportability of the program to other contracts.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation. In its comments on a draft of the report, NNSA stated that it plans to upload lessons learned into DOE's Corporate Lessons Learned Database so they can be considered by other sites by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation. In its comments on a draft of the report, NNSA stated that it plans to evaluate whether to expand use of Annual Controlled Baselines to other sites by December 31, 2020.
GAO-20-418, Apr 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2775
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.
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.
GAO-20-155, Apr 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
GAO-20-361, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In June 2020, GSA said the agency would validate system data through regional and broker outreach and fully utilize validated system data to manage the broker program. The agency also said it will develop a quality control plan and follow-up on outcomes. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Although GSA initially did not concur with this recommendation, the agency stated in June 2020 that it agrees with the recommendation and will take steps to implement it. Specifically, GSA plans to revise the broker performance standards and document broker effectiveness through lease cost avoidance, timely lease replacement, and earned commission credits. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
GAO-20-263, Mar 17, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated May 19 2020, HUD's Chief Financial Officer stated that HUD concurred with this recommendation and will more specifically define who is responsible for identifying and implementing opportunities for achieving efficiencies with service usage, including roles for the business process analyses the Working Capital Fund division conducts from time to time. HUD expects to complete this action by December 31, 2020. When we can confirm what actions HUD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated May 19 2020, HUD's Chief Financial Officer stated that HUD concurred with this recommendation and will add the results of the Working Capital Fund division's business process analyses as a performance metric to its Working Capital Fund performance scorecard. HUD expects to complete this action by December 31, 2020. When we can confirm what actions HUD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated May 19 2020, HUD's Chief Financial Officer stated that HUD concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of implementing this recommendation. According to the letter, reviews of Working Capital Fund business lines are conducted as a part of regular Working Capital Fund Committee meeting discussions. However, the Committee plans to hold formal review sessions dedicated to reviewing the business lines. HUD expects to complete this action by December 31, 2020. When we can confirm what actions HUD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-279, Mar 5, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) agreed with our recommendation and stated that it planned to meet the cost savings target in 2020. We will continue to monitor Agriculture's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described actions that they planned to take in order to address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor Commerce's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described actions that they planned to take in order to address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor Commerce's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) agreed with our recommendation and described actions that the agency planned to take to address the recommendation. NASA stated that it expected to complete these actions by March 31, 2020. Once we have obtained and assessed evidence of the agency's actions taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-20-116, Jan 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to our report, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness will create, share, and maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all DOD sharing venues related to depot maintenance with associated points of contact. The estimated completion date is August 2020. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to our report, the Army is working to update policies to accurately reflect current activities for capturing, preserving, and distributing lessons learned and best practices throughout the organic industrial base. The estimated completion date is no later than December 2022. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-140, Jan 17, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
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.
GAO-20-101, Dec 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update their annual personal property reporting requirements. DOE anticipates having this recommendation implemented by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, DOL indicated in its 180-day letter that they concurred with the recommendation, and have taken steps to improve the monitoring and oversight of Job Corps Property. This includes modifying the GSAXcess approval process by elevating review of all GSAXcess requests made by Job Corps Centers to DOL's Employment Training Administration's (ETA) national office. ETA is also working with DOL's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) to develop a process for GSAXcess review that includes identifying approval levels for each category of property, identifying categories of property requiring additional review and approvals, and coordinating and streamlining access request procedures. These changes will be reflected in DOL's Office of Job Corps standard operating procedures (SOP), which is expected to be issued at the end of fiscal year 2020. DOL expects to provide training to Job Corps staff and Job Corps Centers in support of the SOP that will be provided annually. GAO will continue to monitor DOL's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update internal policies, and provide personal property information on DOE's internal informational website known as Powerpedia. DOE anticipates implementing this recommendation by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation, and has taken steps to revise the Personal Property Reporting Tool (tool). GSA has added relevant authorities to the tool as recently as July 2019, and will continue to contact agencies to ensure relevant authorities are included in the tool. GSA is also evaluating technical updates to the tool to ensure that reporting agencies select an appropriate authority when reporting personal property. GSA plans to complete these actions by July 31, 2020, and inform agencies of these changes in their guidance by the end of fiscal year 2020. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation. GSA will better communicate with agencies to better understand the confusion of reporting on loaned excess property, as reporting requirements are in statute, regulations, and guidance. GSA also plans to review and update by July 31, 2020, relevant regulations and guidance in this area including Federal Management Regulation Bulletin B-27, "Annual Executive Agency Reports on Excess and Exchange/Sale Personal Property." GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-3, Dec 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4456
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-20-130, Dec 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
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.
GAO-20-17, Oct 23, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that its 2020 LUCA Assessment would identify the impacts, if any, of governments providing overlapping coverage in their submissions to the Bureau. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify metrics on submissions from governments that describe both the participating governments and extent of their overlap in coverage.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would continue to identify improvements to address list-sharing programs so that more addresses submitted by governments are reviewed using in-office methods. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take steps that result in a greater share of addresses submitted by governments being reviewed in-office.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would research appeals-reinstated addresses to determine the factors that led to the initial rejection of those addresses, any reasons for their reinstatement upon appeal, and the enumeration outcomes of those addresses. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to complete and report on this work.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would use existing systems to identify and report the costs of individual address list update-related activities. The Bureau also indicated that it would develop the means for capturing the cost of machine-based methods of updating the address list. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify and track costs with sufficient detail to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative efforts it considers and uses to build its address list.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would investigate how best to improve the flow of address data from governments into other census activities, such as research on administrative records or address canvassing. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to establish and demonstrate the use of pathways for data on address collected from governments and their quality to inform the planning of other census activities that rely on address data.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would look for opportunities to allow participants more time to review the address list for their areas, subject to the timing and design of LUCA 2030. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to ensure that governments invited to review addresses are provided sufficient time to review them.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would give participants access to the Bureau's data on hard-to-count areas so that participants could prioritize their address list review efforts. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to demonstrate how it is using its data on hard-to-count areas to improve targeting of outreach to governments, planning other address-improvement activity, and providing feedback to governments.
- Identifying and assessing alternatives and describing corresponding effects on the decennial census.
- Reporting out on the assessment of alternatives, including justifications.
- Developing legislative proposals, as appropriate, for any changes needed to LUCA and address data in order to implement preferred alternatives. (Recommendation 8)
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would reach out to stakeholders in the Summer of 2022 to discuss reexamining LUCA and other address frame initiatives. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to carryout a reexamination with stakeholders on the issues identified in our report as well as identify and report on alternatives as well as legislative proposals as may be appropriate.
GAO-19-565, Aug 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: FDA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. As of August 2020, FDA stated that it is evaluating methods to improve the clarity and content of primary reviewer comments by developing and providing training and work aids on written communication to ensure that FDA conveys deficiency comments in a clear and consistent manner to applicants. FDA noted that best practices on ensuring consistency in deficiency comments will be shared with primary reviewers. In addition, FDA stated that the agency is reviewing current training and providing coaching for secondary reviewers to exchange, compare, discuss, and improve the content and consistency of common deficiencies communicated in primary reviewer comments.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: FDA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. As of August 2020, FDA reported that it is identifying and assessing examples of applications in which the brand-name drug company submitted a supplemental application for a labeling change that impacted the timeline of the generic drug approval. After gathering data, FDA officials stated that they will assess what particular actions could address this issue, including whether FDA has the authority to take any such identified actions.
GAO-19-241, Apr 11, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4456
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department subsequently reported meeting its targets for the advanced energy metering and server utilization metrics. However, the department also reported that it had not yet met its target for the virtualization metric. We will continue to monitor Agriculture's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department subsequently reported meeting its targets for server utilization. However, the department also reported that it had not yet met its target for the virtualization and advanced energy metering metrics. We will continue to monitor Commerce's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Defense agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closures target. The department subsequently reported meeting its closure target for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense is taking action to implement our recommendation. In comments on our report, the department stated that it had already identified significant cost savings through activities such as the identification of system migration candidates and the use of cloud services. The department also said that while it would continue to optimize its data centers, the need for IT would continue to grow, and this growth might ultimately lead to an increase in total data center costs, despite overall per unit cost reductions. In addition, after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department reported achieving a total savings of $102.30 million and reported plans to save an additional $109.50 million in savings for fiscal year 2020. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor the department's efforts through fiscal year 2020 to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department subsequently reported meeting its target for server utilization. However, the department also reported that it had not yet met its target for the virtualization metric and advanced energy metering. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Energy (Energy) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closure target. The department subsequently reported meeting its closure target for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Energy's progress in implementing this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. The department subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Energy's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closure target. The department subsequently reported meeting its closure target for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor HHS's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the department reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor HHS's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closure target. Subsequently, the department reported meeting its closure target for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor DHS's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. The department subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor DHS's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closure target. Subsequently, the department reported meeting its closure goal for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Interior's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Interior (Interior) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center related cost savings targets. Subsequently, the department reported achieving $0.2 million in data center-related cost savings and planned to save an additional $0.5 million in fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts through fiscal year 2020 to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Interior (Interior) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. The department subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Interior's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Justice (Justice) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. The department subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization and advanced energy metering metrics. However, the department did not have an established target for the server utilization metric. Justice stated that, due to OMB issuance of the revised DCOI guidance and metrics, the department had not developed a baseline and target for server utilization. Once it can track server utilization for a few reporting periods, the department stated that it will finalize its definition for underutilized severs and establish an appropriate target for the metric. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the department reported meeting its target for the server utilization metric. However, the department had not yet met its targets for the advanced energy metering and virtualization metrics. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of State (State) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center optimization closure target. The department subsequently reported meeting its closure goal for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor State's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of State (State) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the department reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor State's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Transportation (Transportation) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation and has begun taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closure target. The department subsequently reported meeting its closure goal for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Transportation's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the department reported meeting its target for server utilization. However, the department had not yet met its targets for the advanced energy metering and virtualization metrics. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Treasury (Treasury) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. The department subsequently reported meeting its target for server utilization. However, the department had not yet met its targets for the advanced energy metering and virtualization metrics. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and, as of January 2020, the department reported that it had closed 16 data centers to meet its fiscal year 2019 closure target. To fully implement this recommendation, VA will need to demonstrate sustained implementation progress over time, including meeting its fiscal year 2020 data center closure target.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and, as of January 2020, the department reported that it had met its fiscal year 2019 cost savings target. To fully implement this recommendation, VA will need to demonstrate sustained implementation progress over time, including meeting its fiscal year 2020 data center cost savings target.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and, as of January 2020, the department reported that it had met its fiscal year 2019 targets for three of the four data center optimization metrics tracked by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To fully implement this recommendation, VA will need to meet all four of OMB's metrics, and also demonstrate sustained implementation progress over time by continuing to meet the four metrics across fiscal years.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established a new data center closure target. EPA subsequently reported that it based its three planned closures for fiscal year 2019 on the data center definition applicable while developing its fiscal year 2019 DCOI strategic plan. However, when OMB updated its data center guidance it changed the definition of a data center, and as a result, the three facilities EPA planned to close no longer qualified as data centers. Further, EPA did not have plans to close any additional data centers. While EPA reported to us that it completed the planned closures, the three facilities did not represent what OMB now considers a data center, and so, EPA did not report the closures in its data center inventory update. However, we acknowledge that EPA closed the facilities identified in its April 2019 plan and did not plan to close any data centers that met OMB's new definition, meaning that the agency met its revised fiscal year 2019 goal of zero closures. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor EPA's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action to implement our recommendation. The agency established new data center optimization targets after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019. Subsequently, the agency reported meeting its targets for the advanced energy metering and server utilization metrics. However, the agency had not yet met its target for the virtualization metric. We will continue to monitor EPA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established new data center optimization targets. The agency subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor NASA's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the agency reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor NSF's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is taking action to implement our recommendation. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established new data center optimization targets. The agency subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor NRC's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established a new data center-related cost savings target. Subsequently, the agency reported meeting its fiscal year 2019 target of $7.65 million and planned to save an additional $7.65 million in fiscal year 2020. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor OPM's progress in implementing this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established new data center optimization targets. The agency subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization and server utilization metrics. However, it had not met its target for advanced energy metering. We will continue to monitor OPM's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Small Business Administration (SBA) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the agency reported meeting its target for server utilization. However, the agency had not yet met its targets for the advanced energy metering and virtualization metrics. We will continue to monitor SBA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Social Security Administration (SSA) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established a new data center-related cost savings target. The agency subsequently reported meeting its fiscal year 2019 cost savings target of $0. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Social Security Administration (SSA) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the agency established new data center optimization targets. Subsequently, the agency reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.
GAO-19-58, Apr 4, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, 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.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a mechanism to track savings to implement this recommendation. Specifically, Agriculture officials reported in April 2020 that the department had established an office to assist with cloud migration efforts and instituted a process that requires cloud migration efforts to submit cost data and report cloud savings in accordance with OMB guidance. Officials noted that the department would implement a mechanism within one year once OMB issues guidance related to tracking savings (OMB has not yet implemented guidance in this area). We will continue to monitor Agriculture's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a mechanism to track savings to implement this recommendation. In October 2019, Commerce officials noted that the department would update its current procedures related to tracking savings and cost avoidances within one year once OMB issues guidance related to tracking cloud savings (OMB has not yet implemented guidance in this area). As of May 2020, the procedures have not yet been updated. We will continue to monitor Commerce's progress with these efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (Defense) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department planned to publish guidance in this area. Specifically, in April 2020, Defense officials reported that the department planned to publish guidance by July 2020 that required all department components to rationalize business and IT applications in alignment with the department's enterprise-wide process for conducting software application rationalization and the department's Cloud Strategy. We will continue to monitor Defense's progress on this effort.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Defense (Defense) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor Defense's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would complete an assessment of all IT investments for cloud services. In February 2020, Education officials reported that the department had taken action to update its guidance to include a requirement for assessing new and existing investments for cloud services. However, as of May 2020, based on our review of IT Dashboard data, Education has not yet completed an assessment of 23 investments for these services. We will continue to monitor Education's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would take action to address it. In May 2020, Education officials reported that the department had taken steps to identify a number of cloud investments with cost savings and avoidance data as a part of the integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Education's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would update its IT budget guidance to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials provided a portion of a guidance document, but it did not include language that addressed our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would update its IT budget guidance to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials provided a portion of a guidance document, but it did not include language on assessing investments for cloud services. In addition, as of May 2020, based on our review of data on the IT Dashboard, Energy has not yet completed an assessment of 107 investments for these services. We will continue to monitor Energy's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would establish a mechanism to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials reported that they had identified a number of cloud investments with cost savings as part of the integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Energy's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the CIO would revise its guidance by September 30, 2019 to address it. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from HHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would complete an assessment of all IT investments as part of its portfolio review for fiscal year 2021. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from HHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would take action to track savings as part of its portfolio review process for fiscal year 2021. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from HHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department was taking steps to implement it. Specifically, in October 2019, DHS officials reported that the department was in the process of accessing its remaining systems to determine whether a cloud computing assessment should be completed but did not provide a date when this effort would be finished. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from DHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department was taking steps to implement it. Specifically, in October 2019, DHS officials reported that the department was working on a plan to define the resources and processes needed to implement a mechanism to track savings that would be completed by October 2020. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from DHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (Justice) concurred with our recommendation, and stated that it would require components to assess all investments for cloud. However as of April 2020, based on our review of IT Dashboard data, Justice had not yet completed cloud assessments for 80 investments. We will continue to monitor Justice's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (Justice) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would take action to address it. In December 2019, Justice officials reported that the department had taken steps to identify cloud investments and related savings data as part of an integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Justice's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department was taking steps to integrate a process for assessing investments for cloud computing suitability into its budgeting process. Specifically, in February 2020, Labor officials reported that the department was updating its policy to reflect a Cloud First policy that will ensure that all department investment migrations to cloud services are Cloud smart but did not identify a time frame when the policy would be finalized. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department planned to undertake a full review of data center-based applications for cloud suitability. Specifically, in February 2020, Labor officials reported that the department had created an Engineering Review Board in October 2019 to review proposed IT investments to ensure compliance with the department's cloud architecture, but did not provide a time frame for when all assessments of investments would be completed. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a mechanism to track savings to implement this recommendation. Specifically, in February 2020, Labor officials reported that the department was implementing a tool called Cloudchekr for tracking costs associated with cloud services that would also track related savings and cost avoidances, but no timeframe was provided for when the tool would consistently capture all savings from these efforts. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would develop a prototype tracking system ready for testing by the beginning of fiscal year 2020. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from State regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor State's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. As of May 2020, we have not received any update from the department regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. As of May 2020, we have not received any update from the department regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) concurred with our recommendation but as of May 2020, has not yet taken any actions to implement it. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) concurred with our recommendation but as of May 2020, has not yet taken any actions to implement it. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) concurred with our recommendation, but as of May 2020, has not yet taken any actions to implement it. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would take action to address it. In February 2020, VA officials reported that the department had begun an assessment process and expected to complete this effort by June 30, 2024. We will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would take action to address it. In February 2020, VA officials reported that the department had begun populating a financial management application with data to track overall IT spending and cost savings, but did not provide a timeframe for when a mechanism to track this data would be finalized. We will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the agency planned to develop a process for collecting cost savings data. Specifically, in January 2020, GSA officials reported that the agency intended to develop and document a process for collecting cost and savings data for current and new investments using cloud services. Officials noted that the documentation would provide guidance as to what savings data would be required to be collected, how frequent the data would be reported, and the process for approval, but did not provide a timeframe for when the guidance would be finalized. In addition, officials reported that, once the new process was finalized, the agency would pilot the new process in order to test the approach and the collection of data. As of May 2020, the process has not been finalized. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Small Business Administration (SBA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SBA officials reported that the agency had established a tool for monitoring the costs associated with the migration and deployment of cloud services. However, the documentation SBA provided did not indicate how cloud savings and cost avoidances would be isolated and reported. We will continue to monitor SBA's progress toward implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SSA officials provided a copy of the agency's updated guidance but the guidance did not include language that addressed our recommendation. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from SSA regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SSA officials reported that the agency had completed an assessment of all investments for cloud services. However, our review of the agency's IT Dashboard data in November found that 24 investments remained to be reviewed. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from SSA regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SSA officials reported that the agency was working toward implementing a tool that would track cloud savings and avoidances but did not provide a timeframe for when the tool would be finalized. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from SSA regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-19-300, Mar 21, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, the Currency Evolution Now to Save Act (the CENTS Act) has been introduced in the Senate. This bill authorizes the Department of the Treasury to prescribe a different composition of materials in the half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, or five-cent coin if such action reduces the overall cost of minting the coin and does not affect (1) the diameter and weight of the coin; or (2) the functionality of the coin, including the electromagnetic signature for accepting it.
GAO-19-94, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2660
implementation goals, a timeline, and milestones for agencies to transition from one provider to another;
transparent reporting mechanisms on key milestones; and
a process for capturing and communicating lessons learned.
(Recommendation 1)
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had not addressed this recommendation. According to OMB staff, they are still deliberating goals and milestones for NewPay. In addition, OMB is working on a knowledge library to capture lessons learned for shared services initiatives. However, OMB staff did not provide a timeline for when they will complete these efforts. Without a detailed monitoring plan that includes goals, transparent reporting mechanisms on key milestones, and a process for capturing and communicating lessons learned, it will be more difficult for OMB and GSA to provide oversight of the transition and its effects on providers and customers, including whether there are interruptions to delivery of services. Additionally, this information could help OMB and GSA avoid gaps in service or costly delays as agencies transition to the new model for obtaining payroll and work management services.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had taken some steps to address this recommendation. OMB designated GSA as the Quality Service Management Office (QSMO) for NewPay. As QSMO, GSA will be responsible for managing the payroll marketplace. However, OMB has not documented how GSA and other key stakeholders will work together. For example, OMB has not documented which agency will review and approve task orders. Until OMB and GSA clearly identify, communicate, and document key roles and responsibilities, they run the risk of not achieving their objectives. They also risk repeating past problems associated with the delivery of shared services, such as the inconsistent implementation and interpretation of standards and migrations that encounter costly delays should agencies not follow available guidance.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had not addressed this recommendation. Without up-to-date information on providers -- such as the services OMB and GSA plan to offer, their level of performance, and their costs -- it will be time- consuming and difficult for potential customers to compare providers. This lack of information could slow the rate of shared services adoption.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had not addressed this recommendation. According to OMB officials, OMB will collect cost-savings data via the integrated data collection process, which requires agencies to publicly post their cost savings and avoidance data. However, OMB has not demonstrated how it plans to use data from the IT Integrated Data Collection Instrument to track cost savings specifically related to shared services overall and for individual projects. Until OMB and GSA finalize a plan for collecting the needed data and evidence to effectively measure cost-savings goals, it will be difficult to demonstrate progress -- a recurring challenge associated with previous shared services efforts.
GAO-19-257, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
including 1 priority recommendation
BLS could expand existing worker or firm surveys to ask respondents whether advanced technologies have resulted in worker displacements, work hour reductions, or substantial adjustments to work tasks.
BLS could expand its employment projections work to regularly identify occupations projected to change over time due to advanced technologies.
ETA could expand the O*NET data system to identify changes to skills, tasks, and tools associated with occupations, as the information is updated on its rotational basis, and consider how this could be used to track the spread of advanced technologies.
(Recommendation 1)
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. DOL stated that it will continue coordinating with the Census Bureau on research activities in this area, and plans to identify and recommend data collection options to fill gaps in existing information about how the workplace is affected by new technologies, automation, and AI. In February 2020, DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued a public report evaluating data gaps and providing recommendations for data collection options. In June 2020, DOL reported that BLS plans to host a seminar to discuss the report findings and potential pilot data collection options. DOL also plans to release its first annual employment projections data in September 2020 (previously released every 2 years). In addition, DOL reported that the Employment and Training Administration has undertaken three research efforts, which are still underway, to test ways to analyze O*NET data elements for their potential to track changes in occupations over time and to flag areas for further study on the workforce effects of automation. This recommendation will be implemented when DOL completes more of its activities.
GAO-19-4, Oct 23, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation, and in March 2019 the Department of the Navy directed Commander, Navy Installations Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm any further actions the Navy has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Corps did not concur with this recommendation. However, in written comments, DOD stated that the Department of the Navy would implement this recommendation and that it would be applicable to both the Navy and Marine Corps. In March 2019, the Department of the Navy directed Marine Corps Installation Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Marine Corps has taken in response to this direction, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-370, Jun 1, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
GAO-18-221, Apr 3, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions to update Volume 6A, Chapter 7 of the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) with guidance on rates for disbursement to ensure all components are utilizing the most cost-effective rates while balancing mission requirements and time required to process transactions. DOD estimates that the FMR revision will be completed by October 31, 2020. Until the revision to the FMR is completed, DOD risks paying more to disburse funds for overseas expenditures than would otherwise be required.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. However, as of August 2019, DOD had not planned any actions intended to implement this recommendation. According to DOD, projecting foreign currency gains or losses to determine the necessary size of the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (FCFD) account balance would only be possible if foreign currency rates do not fluctuate. DOD states that if projected gains or losses are used to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account when foreign currency rates are volatile, it would expose the department to additional risk. In our report, we acknowledged the inherent challenge in projecting foreign currency gains or losses. However, we also noted that DOD already projects foreign currency gains or losses as the basis for transfers out of the FCFD account but does not use the same analysis to inform its transfers into the account. Further, DOD has the flexibility to make multiple transfers of funds to the FCFD account in a fiscal year in response to any unforeseen foreign currency fluctuations. Without an analysis of projected losses to determine the necessary size of the account balance, DOD may be maintaining the account at a higher balance than is necessary and losing opportunities to more efficiently use funds.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions to revise Volume 6A, Chapter 7 of the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) to ensure reporting is complete and accurate and assign responsibilities to DOD components for data correction. DOD estimates that the revision to the FMR will be completed by October 31, 2020. Without updated guidance to ensure that the data that tracks foreign currency gains and losses are complete, DOD and Congress will continue to lack quality information with which to make decisions and exercise stewardship over resources for managing foreign currency fluctuations.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions intended to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Secretary of the Army intended to develop a Systems Change Request for how disbursements are recorded in the General Fund Enterprise Business System to be consistent with DOD's Financial Management Regulation. DOD estimates that the system changes will be complete by the second quarter of FY 2020. Until DOD completes its planned actions to address this recommendation, the Army and DOD will continue to lack accurate information for tracking and helping to manage foreign currency gains and losses.
GAO-18-319, Mar 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA has provided GAO with some documents that indicate steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the documents cover topics on workplace and space design. GSA officials said that they are working on a document that focuses on the relationship between space planning and telework that will more directly address this recommendation. The estimated completion date for this document is the end of fiscal year 2020.
GAO-18-34, Nov 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with GAO's November 2017 recommendation. VA planned to implement a new Medical-Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) program, called MSPV 2.0, by March 2020; however, this program has been delayed to at least January 2021. MSPV 2.0 includes a process where clinicians review requirements for a set list of products. As of August 2020, VA is beginning the national rollout of this clinician review process, but the results of this process won't be implemented until after MSPV 2.0 begins. VA's strategy for its MSPV program depends on full implementation of this clinician review process.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with GAO's November 2017 recommendation. VA implemented a tool-the Medical Product Data Bank's eZSAVE application-to improve the matching of equivalent supply items. In November 2018, VA reported that it holds monthly meetings with selected clinical and logistics staff to obtain their input on the matching process. However, as of August 2020, VA has not provided documentation showing how it has defined the role of clinical staff, including Clinical Product Review Committees, in this process. Without documentary support, GAO cannot assess the extent of the clinical staff role in the matching process. If the roles of clinicians are not clearly defined, it increases the risk of inconsistent involvement in the matching process.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with GAO's November 2017 recommendation. VA's planned Medical-Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) 2.0 program includes engaging selected clinicians in its requirement development for a set list of products, known as Clinician-Driven Strategic Sourcing. In April 2019, VA began a pilot for this clinician review process, including input from national clinical program offices. As of August 2020, VA is beginning the national rollout of this process. VA does not plan to incorporate the results of this clinician review process in the list of available supplies until after MSPV 2.0 is implemented, which has been delayed until at least January 2021. Until VA implements MSPV 2.0 and incorporates the results of the Clinician-Driven Strategic Sourcing process, it will not be able to achieve its goals of cost savings and improved clinical consistency.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with GAO's November 2017 recommendation. In August 2019, senior VA acquisition officials agreed to conduct an analysis of its spending to identify items that the department frequently purchases on an emergency basis and to develop plans to purchase those goods and services more strategically, such as by issuing a national contract or adding the items to the formulary as needed. As of August 2020, these officials indicated they would provide this analysis to GAO by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with GAO's November 2017 recommendation. VA reported that it added thousands of items to the Medical-Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) formulary from June 2018 through December 2018, some of which had previously been purchased on an emergency basis. VA also reported in June 2018 and updated in March of 2020 that it is tracking items purchased on an emergency basis. However, as of August 2020, VA has not provided documentation showing whether and how this analysis has informed its selection of which products to add to the formulary. Without documentary support, GAO cannot assess the extent to which items that VA added to the formulary were previously purchased on an emergency basis. If VA does not use analysis of emergency procurements to help inform which items should be added to the MSPV formulary, it will miss opportunities to avoid emergency procurements and increase efficiency.
GAO-18-9, Oct 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7141
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that a 2014 Coast Guard contracted analysis of selected air stations and air facilities identified overlap and unnecessary duplication but it did not comprehensively review all air stations and air facilities. The analysis determined that certain air facilities (Newport, Oregon, and Charleston, South Carolina) provided overlapping search and rescue coverage, some of which was unnecessarily duplicative. Coast Guard officials used the results of this analysis to support proposed closures of the air facilities in the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget. However, shortly before their planned closure date, the Coast Guard encountered strong opposition to the closures at the local, state, and Congressional levels, and did not close them. The Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation that it establish and follow a sound air station optimization process and comprehensive analysis to determine what changes may be needed. In its December 2017 60-Day letter response, DHS said the Coast Guard will utilize the FY 2020 Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution cycle to identify efficiencies in air station optimization and that the cycle is proceeding as planned. However, the response did not say whether the Coast Guard will act on findings and permanently close stations identified as overlapping, unnecessarily duplicative, and unnecessary, if any are identified. As of March 2020, the agency has identified the need for further analysis and estimates completion of these analyses in March 2021.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that the Coast Guard has a sound process for analyzing its boat stations that includes clear and specific steps for analyzing the need for stations using terms that can be readily defined and measured. A 2013 analysis of Coast Guard stations identified unnecessary duplication and recommended certain stations that could be permanently closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour search and rescue response standard and other mission requirements; however, as of August 2017 the Coast Guard had not closed any stations, nor developed a plan with time frames for closing stations even though leaders said the results of the analysis remain valid. Closing unneeded stations has historically been difficult due to public concern about the effect of closures on local communities and other factors. In some cases over the years, Congress has intervened and enacted federal laws that have affected Coast Guard's proposed closures. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation that it establish a plan with target dates and milestones for closing stations. In its December 2017 60-Day letter response, DHS said the Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces continues to evaluate the optimal number, location, and configuration of stations to better meet mission requirements, and is finalizing analysis of operational needs in Coast Guard Districts One (D1) and Five (D5). As of December 2019, the agency had completed additional analyses and reported that it was considering changes in operations for several stations. The Coast Guard estimated that it will continue to consider changes until spring 2020. However, the Coast Guard did not establish target dates or milestones for closing stations. By developing a plan with target dates and milestones for closing stations that are unnecessarily duplicative, the Coast Guard would be better positioned to improve operations and achieve cost savings over time.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that the Coast Guard has not taken action to implement the results of its analyses which recommended station closures even though it has completed requirements to pursue some station closures. For example, a 2013 analysis of Coast Guard stations identified unnecessary duplication and recommended certain stations that could be permanently closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour search and rescue response standard and other mission requirements. However, as of August 2017 the Coast Guard had not closed any stations, nor developed a plan with time frames for closing stations even though Coast Guard leaders said the results of the analysis remain valid. GAO reported that the Coast Guard had not closed stations because past efforts to close stations (eight attempts since 1973) were met with resistance from affected communities and instances where the Congress intervened. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation that it establish a plan with target dates and milestones for closing stations. In its December 2017 60-Day letter response, DHS said that once analyses of the need for and locations of boat stations are completed for Coast Guard Districts One and Five, the Coast Guard will commence Congressional engagement and public outreach regarding any operational changes to D1 and D5 stations, if any, including processing feedback from stakeholders before making final decisions on recommended changes. As of December 2019, the Coast Guard reported that it was considering changes in operational status for several stations. The Coast Guard estimated that it will continue to consider changes until spring 2020, which, if implemented, will be more than 7 years after it proposed station closures. By closing unnecessarily duplicative stations, the Coast Guard could be better positioned to improve its operations and achieve cost savings over time.
GAO-17-448, Aug 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an updated Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) policy that encouraged federal agencies to implement automated monitoring tools at agency-owned data centers using more than 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. However, the updated policy did not require agencies to document a plan for implementing the tools as we recommended. As of January 2020, we have not received further update from OMB and the recommended action has not yet been taken. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department noted that, as part of its effort to consolidate, define, and establish a plan to deploy an enterprise-wide automated monitoring tool, it had identified two component agencies that would offer a data center infrastructure management tool as a service. The department added that this approach would allow it to monitor and report cost savings and avoidances more efficiently. In November 2019, Commerce reported that it had 73 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 73, only seven had implemented the required advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 66 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that it established plans to implement automated monitoring tools at its 78 department-owned tiered data centers and planned to evaluate whether its 68 department-owned non-tiered data centers should be consolidated or closed. In November 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department further stated that, for the non-tiered centers projected to remain open, it expected to complete plans for automated server utilization by September 30, 2019. In November 2019, Energy reported that it had 92 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which the Office of Management and Budget exempted three from optimization requirements by. However, of the remaining 89 data centers, only 37 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 52 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that HHS would direct its operating and staff divisions to acquire and install automated monitoring tools in all agency-owned data centers by the close of fiscal year 2018. In November 2019, HHS reported that it had 35 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. Of those 35, 22 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) partially concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, the department stated that it was committed to completing its plan on schedule, but that its ability to meet the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all department-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018 depended on many factors and variables, including the availability of funding and other resources. Nevertheless, in October 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department stated that it expected to complete planning for the deployment of automated monitoring in agency-owned data centers by September 30, 2018 and to complete implementation by December 31,2023. The letter noted that Interior would prioritize implementation at major tiered data centers, with implementation at other data centers as budgets permitted. In November 2019, Interior reported that it had 55 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, one of which OMB exempted from optimization requirements. However, of the remaining 54 data centers, only 17 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 37 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) agreed with our recommendation and, in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Information Officer would create a plan of action to address the multi-layer requirements applicable to the department. Transportation expected to develop a plan of action that addressed the Office of Management and Budget's August 2016 Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) guidance memorandum. The department expected to implement its plan by September 30, 2018. In November 2019, Transportation reported that it had 17 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 17 data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 17 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, the Department of the Treasury reported that it had 16 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 16 data centers, only four had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with our recommendation, and in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it's Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) was developing a plan to fully comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018. According to the department, OI&T had taken a series of actions such as determining a strategy to meet OMB reporting requirements and reviewing the existing automated tools in use at VA. As part of its planning effort, OI&T was analyzing its data centers, collecting data through a web-based portal and automated tools, and implementing change management processes to manage IT assets in VA data centers. According to the department, OI&T expected to complete a written comprehensive plan by November?30, 2017. In May 2018, VA indicated that it had engaged OMB in discussions regarding how to classify its data centers and that the comprehensive plan would be completed by October 2018. In November 2019, VA reported that it had 279 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which OMB exempted 67 from optimization requirements and another 204 were pending OMB review to determine whether they would also be exempt. However, of the remaining eight data centers, none had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining eight agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State agreed with our recommendation and described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it performed an analysis of tools, including shared services and commercial-off-the-shelf products. The department also stated that it was developing an acquisition strategy based on its research and planned to pursue a commercially available product. However, the department noted that budgetary constraints may delay the acquisition until fiscal year 2019 or later. In October 2019, staff from State's Office of the Chief Information Officer reported that 3,897 of the department's 4,137 servers (94.2 percent) had monitoring tools installed. In January 2020, the staff indicated that the department planned to continue installing tools as funds were available, with the goal of completing installation by the end of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described planned actions to address our recommendation. Specifically, the agency detailed plans to address OMB's requirements, such as leveraging EPA's current investment in a network monitoring tool and the intent to procure and deploy a data center infrastructure management tool by the end of fiscal year 2018. However, in December 2018, EPA determined it will leverage its current network monitoring tool for server utilization monitoring. The agency expects to have most data center servers monitored by the end of CY 2019. Once servers are monitored, the agency said that it will follow the most current OMB guidance to report required metrics. In November 2019, EPA reported that it had four agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those four data centers, one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining three agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation and described plans to address it. Specifically, the agency stated that it plans to consolidate its remaining data centers into two main locations by the end of fiscal year 2018. OPM further stated that this consolidation will obviate the need to implement automated monitoring tools at the data centers that are closing. Finally, the agency noted that it is implementing automated monitoring tools at the designated core data centers. In November 2019, OPM reported that it had two agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those two data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining agency-owned data center. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The VA Enterprise Mail Management Program Office revised Directive and Handbook 6340 "Mail Management" to include agency-wide goals and performance measures for mail operations and provided GAO draft versions of both documents in March 2020 that are currently under administration review. According to VA officials, final publication of the revised Directive and Handbook 6340 is estimated to be completed between September and December 2020. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-17-501, Jul 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action to implement this matter.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.
GAO-17-457, Jun 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) officials indicated that organizations can determine cost savings attributable to contracting utilizing the Virtual Contracting Enterprise. However, this method is not formalized or documented in policy or guidance, and DASA(P) officials have not incorporated cost savings attributable to contracting into the CERs. We continue to believe that the Army should implement a CER metric to evaluate cost savings attributable to contracting activities.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) officials noted that the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the system for processing and collecting contractor performance information, but also expressed that the information contained in the system may not be reliable for assessing contractor performance. The information contained in CPARS is subjective and has had thousands of overdue required entries. The DASA(P) officials subsequently stated that DOD made improvements to CPARS based on a 2017 DOD Inspector General report. However, the officials have not provided any information identifying specific improvements DOD made, or evidence that CPARS is now an effective means to collect and report contractor performance data.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) is in the process of implementing talent management metrics through its Contracting Enterprise Review (CER) briefings. To this end, the 2nd quarter, fiscal year 2020 CER briefing included information about skill-based hiring and flexibilities for tailored training. However, the CER briefing did not address the department's contracting workforce requirements. We continue to believe that the ASA(ALT) should accurately determine the department's contracting workforce requirements in accordance with the Army's needs.
GAO-17-211, Mar 1, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2020, the Navy had commissioned a study of its use of additional incentives on fixed-price incentive contracts across its shipbuilding programs. The Navy plans to socialize this report with the shipbuilding program executive offices so that they can share lessons learned across the shipbuilding enterprise. The estimated completion date for this effort is the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. Following completion of that effort, in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, the Navy plans to provide recommendations regarding the use of additional incentives on fixed-price incentive contracts across its shipbuilding programs.
GAO-17-38, Nov 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
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.
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.
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.
GAO-16-511, Sep 29, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Commerce did not meet the following software application inventory practice: regularly updates the inventory with quality controls to ensure reliability. Specifically, the department did not provide evidence of a process to regularly update its inventory or quality controls to ensure the reliability of the data collected. In October 2017, the department reported that application inventory information will be captured through the Department of Commerce Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) system, as part of its regular updating of investment information. Further, the department stated that it will update its CPIC handbook to provide guidance on quality control to ensure reliability of the data collected. In November 2018 and November 2019 we followed-up with Commerce on the status of their efforts; however, as of January 2020, we had not received an update. We plan to continue to follow up with Commerce to monitor the status of these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Energy partially met the following three software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, (2) specifies basic application attributes, and (3) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In May 2017, the department reported that it plans to implement automated monitoring and inventory tools by the end of fiscal year 2020, which it expects will address the key practices. In December 2019, the department reported that it anticipates completing a refresh of its application inventory by the end of February 2020. We plan to monitor the department's efforts to implement the tools and to develop a complete application inventory.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) partially met the following three software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, (2) specifies basic application attributes, and (3) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In June 2017, the department reported that it is working to identify applications in field offices, and planned for this effort to be completed in fiscal year 2018. In addition, the department stated it planned to update the inventory to include business functions for each system by the end of fiscal year 2017. Further, department officials stated that to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the application inventory, the department planned to conduct quarterly portfolio reviews starting in fiscal year 2018. In October 2018, HUD officials reported that CTO performed a technical assessment of HUD's IT assets, which resulted in identifying systems in the inventory that had been decommissioned and will be decommissioned. In addition, the department provided its strategy for performing the assessment. In August 2019, HUD reported that it completed an assessment of its legacy applications and the current inventory system is outdated. However, as of January 2020, HUD had not yet provided an updated inventory. We plan to continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Social Security Administration (SSA) partially met the following two software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, and (2) regularly updates the inventory with quality controls to ensure reliability. In March 2017, SSA officials reported that the agency's Office of Systems and Office of Operations continue to collaborate on integrating application information into the Enterprise Application Inventory. The officials reported that regionally developed applications that have been granted authority to operate have been imported into the enterprise application inventory. In addition, the officials stated that the Office of Operations was in the process of redesigning their repository to accommodate requirements to support the Enterprise Application Inventory, including the ability to update and maintain application information in the enterprise repository. Lastly, SSA officials reported that its Office of Information Security and Office of Systems were continuing to work to identify additional headquarters applications and develop process and automation to include applications in the inventory. In June 2019, SSA officials reported that they were continuing to make progress to update the inventory to include systems from all organizational components. However, as of January 2020, we had not received an updated inventory. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to develop a complete application inventory.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Labor did not meet one software application inventory practice, and partially met three practices. Specifically, we reported that the department did not meet the practice to ensure that the inventory is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability, and partially met the practices to (1) include business and enterprise IT systems, (2) include systems from all organizational components, and (3) specify basic application attributes. In March 2018, department officials provided an updated inventory, which included business and enterprise IT systems from all organizational components, and specified basic attributes, including the name, owner, and business function. In addition, officials stated that they plan to update the inventory on a periodic basis as necessary, at minimum annually, as part of the department's IT budgeting process. Further, in June 2019, officials reported that the department performs biannual reviews of all IT investments and associated systems and applications to verify reported data. The officials also reported that the department uses quality control processes and procedures to ensure consistent, standard, and complete reporting to align with all investment artifacts. However, the department did not provide evidence of these data quality efforts. In June 2019, officials also reported that the department is implementing a new system in order to maintain an ongoing comprehensive inventory of all IT assets, including applications, which it expects to have fully operational by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of the Treasury had partially met the following two practices for establishing a complete software application inventory, (1) specifies basic application attributes, and (2) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In September 2017, the department provided evidence showing that it had taken steps to address these practices. Specifically, the department provided an export of its inventory, which showed that most of the systems listed contained a system description. According to department officials, some systems do not have a system description because the department's inventory policy allows bureaus to attach documents to the inventory, which include the system description, instead of populating the system description field. Further, the policy does not require a system description for systems in the disposal state. Moreover, the inventory did not include the business segment or function that the system supports. According to Treasury officials, the Bureau and Functional Unit fields within the inventory allow the department to map the systems to the business segments that they support. We followed up with the department to obtain this mapping. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided it. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to ensure that the inventory is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure its reliability.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of State partially met the following software application inventory practices: (1) specifies basic application attributes; and (2) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. Specifically, we reported that while the inventory included basic application attributes (e.g. name, description), it did not include the business function for the majority of inventory entries. Further, we reported that the agency did not provide evidence that quality control processes were in place to ensure the reliability of the data in the inventory. In July 2017, department officials stated that the department recently began a department-wide data call to obtain information on all IT assets and applications from each bureau, including aligning the assets and applications to a business function. Further, officials stated that they plan to analyze the results against their current data to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the IT asset inventory. In June 2019, the department provided evidence demonstrating that its inventory includes the business function for IT assets. In addition, State officials stated that the IT asset inventory that is posted internally for review is a high-level summary to facilitate monthly validation. However, as of January 2020, the department has not provided documentation showing that it has implemented the quality control processes to ensure the reliability of the data. We plan to continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Environmental Protection Agency had fully met three of the four practices to establish a complete application inventory, and partially met one. Specifically, the agency partially met the practice for including application attributes in the inventory, as although EPA did not identify the business function for every application. In December 2019, Environmental Protection Agency officials stated that the inventory now requires the business function to be included, and provided inventory update instructions that show the business function is to be included. In addition, agency officials provided instructions for senior information managers to update the inventory in fiscal year 2019. However, as of January 2020, agency officials had not provided an updated inventory, and thus we were not able to verify that the business function was added for all applications. We will follow up with the agency to obtain the updated inventory.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) partially met the software application inventory practice to regularly update the inventory with quality controls to ensure reliability. In November 2016, OPM officials stated that they were validating the data in the application inventory. In addition, officials stated that they were making progress in using automated scanning tools to update the inventory, including coordinating with the General Services Administration's Software Management Group which is working to standardize the use of automated inventory tools across the government. In June 2017, November 2018, and November 2019, we followed up with OPM to obtain documentation of these reported actions; however, as of January 2020, the agency had not yet provided supporting documentation. We are continuing to follow up with OPM to obtain documentation of its reported actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with our recommendation, noting, among other things, in its written response to our draft report, that a majority of the Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area systems are IT infrastructure, and not applications. However, we reported that the mission area nevertheless included a large number of enterprise and business IT applications which could benefit from rationalization, and we therefore believed our recommendation was still warranted. In March 2020, the department stated that it is formalizing a guide to assist components with implementing an application rationalization process, that will be used to rationalize the Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area systems. The department stated that it plans to perform annual reviews, and expects to start by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, DHS officials stated that they identified FOIA systems as a high cost function, and will modify existing processes to collect and review the cost, technical, and business information. In November 2019, DHS reported that it is continuing to make progress in acquiring a new enterprise-wide FOIA system by reviewing current capabilities. We plan to continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2017, department officials stated that the department's portfolio of IT investments, which includes the systems, sub-systems, and applications in the IT asset inventory, are rationalized bi-annually as part of the Office of the Chief Information Officer's IT Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) review processes. Further, officials stated that the systems and applications were also being rationalized as part of the process for updating the IT asset inventory. Officials stated that the department plans to review and update the department's CPIC guide to describe the IT asset inventory management process including the basic quality controls. In July 2019, officials reported that the department plans to have the updated guide completed by the end of fiscal year 2019. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided documentation supporting these efforts. We plan to follow-up with the department to obtain documentation of its efforts to address the recommendation.
GAO-16-820, Sep 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
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.
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.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-16-810, Sep 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has made progress in finalizing the update to its acquisition regulations and manual. In August 2020, VA reported that 31 of the 41 parts in its new acquisition regulations had been issued as draft or final rules. The remainder are at an earlier stage of the rulemaking process. VA also stated that it remains on track to release the final VA Acquisition Regulations in April 2021.
GAO-16-286, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3489
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has made progress on this recommendation by (1) aligning guidance on the Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities (IGCA) Inventory to redefined Management Headquarters Activities, (2) requiring service components to revalidate DOD function codes assigned to billets when providing data to support the IGCA inventory, and, (3) providing documentation to show it had aligned total obligation authority and manpower information in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documentation to demonstrate that guidance had been implemented. In addition, DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. When the department documents alignment of major headquarters activities with civilian and military manpower information and improves functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD had made progress on this recommendation by documenting it had aligned manpower and total obligation authority in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. As of August 2020, the department had not, however, finalized the definition of major headquarters activities in its guidance. When the department formalizes the definition in guidance and improves its functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and estimate related resources.
GAO-16-48, Oct 20, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. The Census Bureau informed us in December 2015 that no later than the end of December 2015, it would document how these matters have been addressed in the enumerator training (or in help screens on their mobile device) planned for the 2016 Census Test, and that it would use results and observations from that test to further refine such information for future tests and for the 2020 Census. The Bureau provided us with related training materials for the 2016 Test, yet we made similar observations during the 2016 test and the 2018 End-to-End test. For the Bureau to be informed on any additional training needs or other operational decisions for 2020, it will need to continue to expand its efforts in collecting information on enumerator-reported problems per our 2015 recommendation. In April 2020, Bureau officials said that it was not likely they would be able to incorporate additional changes for the 2020 Census field operations. With the Bureau's more recent April announcement to further delay field operations due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we are continuing to ask the Bureau if there is opportunity to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to identify what information it finds valuable to have from its enumerators, such as the incidence of specific technical problems with the survey instrument or mobile device and ensure that enumerators and their first-line supervisors are made aware of the importance of recording such information and how to do so.
GAO-15-713, Sep 9, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. However, as of September 2018 DOD stated that the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) was continuing to coordinate with the military services to synchronize and clarify budgetary reporting requirements. As such, we believe that this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.
GAO-15-56, Dec 10, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD has not provided information demonstrating that the department has addressed this recommendation. HUD reported that it established a new executive-level investment review board (i.e. the Executive Operations Committee) that replaced the board discussed in our report. The department also provide evidence of the board's initial governance activities, including providing criteria to guide board decision-making in January 2017. However, the board has not continued to meet and act in accordance with its charter. In April 2019, HUD reported that it was updating its governance process and charters and stated an intent to ensure that executive-level decision making is clearly defined including when a decision needs to be made, at what level that decision needs to be made, what criteria should be used, and how that decision will be communicated. HUD has not yet provided evidence that the updated governance process and charter have been finalized and implemented.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The department has taken steps to address this recommendation. In 2015, HUD updated its Project Planning and Management policy. Since that time, the department has developed additional policies (e.g., IT risk management policy), revised policies for the IT management framework and Agile development, and reported that it reviewed OCIO's existing policies in September 2018. In October 2018, HUD provided a copy of the draft of the revisions to its IT Management Framework (dated February 2018) and OCIO reported plans to continue developing and maintaining IT policies for each of the framework's elements and to review policies for currency annually on the anniversary date of the policy. As of March 2019, HUD reported that a central repository had been developed to store, track and monitor policy reviews. GAO is seeking additional evidence from the newly implemented policy review process.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD has provided information demonstrating that the department has addressed elements of this recommendation. In 2015, HUD reported that it had begun using a new tool to support its IT selection process. In May 2018, the department provided a demonstration of its HUD PLUS tool, including how it had used the tool to automate its selection process. The officials demonstrated how the tool is being used to review proposed projects. They reported that segment sponsors are responsible for validating data submitted but have not provided evidence that the department has developed guidance for that process. The officials demonstrated how the tool supports analysis of investment costs, schedule, and risk. They also demonstrated how the tool helps the Office of the Chief Information Officer compare investments based on cost and showed how decision makers access information and can perform analysis for all projects in the system. Department officials have not yet provided evidence that HUD has improved each of the areas noted in our recommendation. OCIO reported in April 2019 that it intends to: conduct the selection process on a more frequent basis and allow more time for annual budget considerations, improve performance metrics, and further incorporate cost-benefit analysis. OCIO also reported that it intends to better incorporate its management and oversight of the portfolio into a more formal "re-select" process. OCIO also reported that HUD was updating its governance policies to detail the criteria, data, and process used to select investments and targeting action to close this recommendation in 2019.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The department has taken steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in April 2016, HUD provided examples of cost savings that the department had identified by "scrubbing" existing contracts during the budget formulation process, along with copies of a template that it designed and used to help identify such savings. In May 2018, department officials provided a demonstration of the HUD PLUS tool, including screens staff could use to report cost savings and avoidances related to specific projects--although they reported that HUD was not yet using that functionality. In April 2019, OCIO reported that HUD was updating its governance process and charters to ensure that executive-level decision making will be clearly defined. OCIO also reported an intent to implement Technology Business Management to, among other things, improve and expand the tracking of investments. HUD expects these two efforts to facilitate better tracking of the savings and efficiencies resulting from IT decisions. The department has not yet provided evidence that it has established guidance supporting a repeatable process for tracking enterprise-wide IT related cost savings and operational efficiencies, including those related to HUD's governance decisions.
GAO-14-577, Sep 19, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.
GAO-14-529, Jun 17, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3604
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.
GAO-14-65, Nov 6, 2013
Phone: (202)512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, OMB had taken steps to improve transparency of and accountability for PortfolioStat, as GAO recommended in November 2013. In October 2015, the agency started displaying actual data consolidation savings data on the federal information technology (IT) dashboard. As of April 2018, however, OMB was not requiring that agencies report planned PortfolioStat cost savings stating this was as a result of agency feedback, and streamlining of data collection efforts based upon the decision that reporting on realized cost savings is more valuable than reporting on planned or projected cost savings.In March 2019, OMB stated that it was "exploring better approaches to cost savings as reported by agencies to the IT Dashboard." We are following up with OMB to determine whether these approaches include publicly disclosing planned and actual data consolidation efforts and related cost savings by agency.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, the Commerce described its process for updating its IT asset inventory as part of the budget formulation process and provided a mapping of investments to its enterprise architecture as evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. However, the department did not provide any policies and procedures supporting the process it described to us. In addition, it did not provide any evidence of controls to ensure that all investments had been captured in the enterprise architecture. In January 2020, the department told us that its Office of the Chief Information Officer had new leadership and as a result the department was expected to make significant progress in addressing the recommendation this year.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, Commerce officials told GAO about actions taken that they believed addressed the recommendation and provided supporting documentation. Specifically, they stated that they send out an annual data call for bureaus to provide their IT asset inventory as part of the budget submission process. They stated they also perform department-level validation of the bureaus' inventories and aggregate them into a single department inventory. As evidence, they provided a data call memo with supporting instructions and a template for bureaus to establish an IT asset inventory. They also provided examples of three bureau inventories received in response to data calls. In addition, they provided the final aggregated inventory (for fiscal year 2017) and department-level validation of bureau submissions. However, the department did not provide any policies or procedures documenting the process they described. In addition, we could not determine whether the creation of the department-wide inventory was a one-time effort or a recurring activity. In January 2020, the department told us that its Office of the Chief Information Officer had new leadership and as a result the department was expected to make significant progress in addressing the recommendation this year.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that it had efforts underway to further define the department's commodity IT baseline. In January 2019, our contact from the Office of the Chief Information Officer told us that the department had recently established an IT Purchase Request (ITPR) process for controlling spending that had a built-in IT asset inventory process that would address the recommendation. In August 2019, we received documentation on the ITPR process as part of an ongoing engagement. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with the recommendation, stating that the commodity IT construct implemented by OMB with PortfolioStat did not work with the department's federated management process. However, the department agreed that a strategy, consistent with the intent of achieving better buying power and control of commodity IT items, should be developed and implemented within the department using existing authorities and stated that it was in the process of implementing this strategy. In January 2019, the Office of the Chief Information Officer's Director for Performance Management stated that while the CIO did not have the authority to consolidate commodity IT spending, the department had taken actions he believed addressed the intent of the recommendation to gain visibility into IT spending. Specifically, he stated that the department established a policy to leverage its buying power for commodity IT purchases (for example for software licenses). In addition, the department recently established an IT Purchase Request (ITPR) process for controlling IT spending. In August 2019, we received documentation related to those actions as part of an ongoing engagement. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The department of Defense concurred with the recommendation and stated that it already reported data center consolidation savings and would continue to realize savings from the Enterprise Software Initiative, other strategic sourcing efforts and the implementation of the General Fund Enterprise Business System initiatives. Through other engagements, in August 2016, we had collected support for data center consolidation and Enterprise Software Initiative savings for fiscal years 2013 to 2015. In January 2019, the Office of the Chief Information Officer's Director for Performance Management told us that the department had not been tracking savings generated by other commodity IT initiatives due to the difficulty in doing so, however, it was tracking an "other" category of savings through OMB's integrated data collection instrument (IDC) process which he believed the intent of our recommendation. He noted that the "other" category tracks savings from various OMB IT reform initiatives. Mr. Johnson said he had sent a recent IDC report along with supporting documentation to GAO to address a recommendation made in GAO-15-296. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with the recommendation and stated that, in the future, USACE would fully describe the four action plan elements when reporting to OMB. In August 2016, the department reported that it had addressed and closed the recommendation in February 2015 and cited policies, procedures, and other supporting documentation as evidence. However, the department did not provide the supporting documentation. In April 2018, the department provided several documents as evidence of its efforts to address this recommendation, including an order outlining the capital planning investment management process for the fiscal year 2017. We determined that the documents did not support the department's claims. In January 2019, the department told us it would provide an update on the status of actions to address the recommendation. As of August 2019, the department had not yet provided any update.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that it had efforts underway to further define the department's commodity IT baseline. In August 2016, the department reported that it had addressed and closed the recommendation in October 2014 and described several actions that it believed contributed to addressing the recommendation, including, continued improvements to data center reporting, and greater understanding of IT infrastructure costs. However, the department did not provide any documentation to support its claims. In January 2019, the department told us it would provide an update on the status of actions to address the recommendation. As of August 2019, the department had not yet provided any update.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Registry of Environmental Protection Agency Applications, Models and Databases (READ) system had a complete inventory of enterprise IT and business systems-two of three categories of IT assets that make up a commodity IT baseline-and that the agency had processes in place to regularly update this inventory to ensure its completeness (see GAO-16-511). We have been following up with EPA to obtain its inventory of IT infrastructure systems-the third commodity IT category--and determine the agency's process to ensure the completeness of this inventory. In a December 2019 update, EPA told us that it was working on a response to the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported making progress in addressing the three action plan elements through implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) and efforts to assess applications in its inventory. In June 2019, the agency provided supporting documentation. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it fully addresses the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: Between July and December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that it had implemented a managed print service contract for headquarters in 2014 and was preparing to award a new contract to also cover its regions. The agency also reported that it plans to use one of the government-wide contracts identified in OMB's policy on improving the acquisition and management of common IT for its end user computing needs. EPA, however, did not provide documentation supporting these efforts. In a December 2019 update, EPA told us that it was working on a response to the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the department stated that its budget formulation process ensures that all investments are included in its enterprise architecture (EA). Specifically, the department stated that, as part of the budget formulation process, the EA group reviews investments and aligns them to the business areas within the EA framework by assigning them business reference model codes. To support its claims, in November 2019, the department provided a list of investments showing their alignment with the business reference model codes for the fiscal year 2021 budget formulation process. However, the department did not provide evidence of the EA group's review process. As of January 2020, we were following up with the department to obtain this evidence.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, NASA reported that it was making revisions to its enterprise architecture policy that would assist with ensuring that 100 percent of the agency's information technology investments are in the enterprise architecture. In July and December 2018, the agency provided updates on its efforts along with supporting documentation, though not enough to fully address the recommendation. In July 2019, the agency stated it also had efforts underway to centralize IT governance under the Chief Information Officer and this would contribute to reflect all investments in the enterprise architecture. The agency stated it would continue to update us on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OPM stated that it was developing a service catalog with cost information and allocation components which together with the agency's software inventory would be used for cost avoidance moving forward. However, OPM did not provide supporting documentation. In addition, it was not clear whether the service catalog and software inventory would together include enterprise IT, IT infrastructure, and business systems, the three categories of IT assets that comprise a commodity IT baseline. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, OPM provided evidence that it had addressed the action plan element regarding the migration of two commodity IT areas to shared services. Specifically, OPM provided an August 2016 interagency agreement showing plans to migrate its financial management system to a shared service and a May 2018 interagency agreement showing plans to migrate its human resources and time and attendance system to a shared service. However, the interagency agreements were not signed. Regarding the action plan element to target duplicative systems or contracts that support common business functions for consolidation, OPM stated did that it had targeted laptops and mobile phones for consolidation. In addition, OPM did not provide any evidence of reporting to OMB for either action plan element. In February 2020, OPM stated that, in addition to entering into an interagency agreement for its financial management system and consolidating the procurement of agency-wide laptops and cellphones using an enterprise wide contract, it was also working to close two of its five major data centers to consolidate to three. OPM said that it was gathering the documentation to support its claims.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OPM stated that its IT help desk function had become a shared service starting in October 2019. However, OPM did not provide supporting documentation. In addition, OPM stated it did not have any updates on the IT asset inventory. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2014, the Department of the Treasury reported that it did not plan to consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO. Specifically, the department stated that commodity IT investment decisions were consolidated under the Treasury Technology Investment Review Board which is co-chaired by the agency CIO and Assistant Secretary for Management; and that it did not see the benefit of combining the budget authorities of the various bureau infrastructure investments. In regards to establishing criteria to identify wasteful, low-value, and duplicative investments, in September 2014, the department stated that the Treasury Technology Investment Review Board and Technology Advisory Working Group had established an approach that considers risk, value and cost in reviewing investment requests to identify wasteful, low-value, and duplicative investments. As of May 2019, we were reviewing documentation we received from the department in September 2018 to determine whether the recommendation has been fully addressed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2014, the Department of the Treasury described several examples of processes it had established to identify opportunities to reduce duplicative, low-value or wasteful investments, including annual reviews of each major IT investment and monthly portfolio reviews. As of May 2019, we were reviewing updated information we received in September 2018 to determine whether the recommendation has been fully addressed.
GAO-13-698, Aug 22, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-9619
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of 18 Aug 2014, the Army and Marine Corps actions for this recommendation are currently ongoing and the recommendation status currently remains open. On 14 June 2014, the DOD Inspector General reported in the Defense Audit Management Information System that "the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense(Readiness) developed a decision algorithm to determine which military tasks could be taught virtually and which military tasks should only be taught in classroom or field environments (i.e., live). The algorithm was provided to the Services for peer-review and possible implementation. The Army is reviewing its progressive training models through a process called Training Summit IV (TS IV). These models establish how virtual and constructive based training is integrated with live training to optimize training readiness. The TS IV will include training model review by proponent schools, as well as a cross-section of unit commanders and leaders. This effort will be completed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and presented for validation and G-3/5/7 approval at the Army Training General Officer Steering Committee in November 2014. Also, the Marine Corps initiated a request for an internal servicewide study of existing and potential approaches to this topic (4th Quarter FY 2013). The initial focus is in determining how metrics can be better used to assess the impact of simulation based on meeting Marine Corps Training Standards. Furthermore, a targeted study began in the 1st Quarter FY 2014 and is focused initially on enhancing the methodology for assessing individual based simulators against Training and Readiness (T&R) Standards. In FY 2015, the study results will shape policy on how future T&R manuals will identify the appropriateness of simulators and simulations for training."
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of 18 Aug 2014, the Army and Marine Corps actions for this recommendation are currently ongoing and the recommendation status currently remains open. On 14 June 2014, the DOD Inspector General reported in the Defense Audit Management Information System that "the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) has coordinated with the Army and Marine Corps to identify standard approaches to capture costs and cost benefit analysis that could be used DoD-wide. The Army has undertaken a "cost of training" analysis that is an on-going action to determine cost of readiness and/or training. One area of concentration is to look at the "Other Burdened Resources Required for Training Readiness." This area is further broken down into two areas: Investment/Modernization and Installation Services. The Investment/Modernization area will look at Non-System Training Aids, Devices, Simulators and Simulations while Installation Services will look at Post Deployment Software Support. In addition, the Army is gathering data to validate an existing model developed by the Simulations to Mission Command Interoperability Director (Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation) for the Value of Simulation Study consisting of five phases: Phase one focused on development of a working methodology to assess both quantitative and qualitative value of simulations used to support collective training (completed). Phase two is currently gathering data for model validation. Phase three will be an expansion to other simulation capabilities. Phase four is data gathering and validation. Phase five is expanded testing/methodology use case study/validation for return on investment use. The Marine Corps established a study, described in response to Recommendation 1, which will evaluate and propose the initial cost factors not currently captured during Programming yet would be relevant in determining the appropriate mix of live and simulated training. The initial results are expected in FY 2015."
GAO-12-791, Sep 26, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce has not implemented this recommendation. Since we reported in 2012 that the department had established metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes but not a method for measuring the metrics, the department issued an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan in April 2018. This plan included outcome metrics; however, the department had not documented a method for measuring the metrics. In January 2020, the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) stated that the department recently appointed a new CIO (acting) and was in the process of revisiting strategic planning initiatives and implementation to ensure they are congruent with the IT strategic vision and objectives. The Office of the CIO also said it was hiring a new Chief Enterprise Architect, which would impact previous initiatives and strategies. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that it would establish an approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes defined in the DOD Digital Modernization Strategy, by September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided documentation demonstrating that it had established metrics and a method for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Army had taken steps to address this recommendation, but much more remains to be done. Specifically, in December 2013, the department developed its Army Business Management Strategy, which included metrics to measure the number of business systems retired over five years and cost savings and avoidance through use of the Army's business enterprise architecture. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had documented the steps to measure the metrics. In January 2020, the department's chief architect stated that the department was in the process of establishing a baseline architecture. We will continue to monitor the Army's efforts to establish an architecture and an approach for measuring architecture outcomes in accordance with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Energy demonstrated that it had taken steps to implement the recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the department developed a draft plan to measure business architecture performance. We will monitor the department's efforts to finalize and implement its plan.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor has not addressed the recommendation. In August 2020, the department stated that it was continuing to evaluate processes for reviewing and assessing enterprise architecture value.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the Department of State developed an enterprise architecture plan, which identified several benefits that may be achieved by executing the plan. These benefits included, for example, lower support and acquisition costs and reuse of technology and investments. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had established an approach for measuring the potential benefits in the plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency has not implemented this recommendation. In December 2019, the agency stated that its chief architect and technical architecture staff were working to reformulate the enterprise architecture program and described several goals and activities that were underway. The agency also stated that the program was examining industry best practices on architecture metrics to determine which would be best for EPA's enterprise architecture program. As metrics are adopted to assess the value of the architecture program, the program will work them into the agency-wide process for performance metrics. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not yet implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, NASA's Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Service and Integration said the agency was in the process of developing an enterprise architecture policy directive and procedural requirements. He anticipated that they would be completed in October 2020.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, the Small Business Administration had not implemented this recommendation. In August 2019, SBA developed an enterprise architecture program performance guide and value measurement plan. According to the plan, the agency plans to measure cost savings/avoidance and reduction of duplication. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has documented the steps to be followed to measure the outcomes. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that it had established a method to measure the cost savings/avoidance or the number of duplicate investments reduced.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, a Senior Analyst in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance stated that, as of January 2020, OPM's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) had established an approach for developing an enterprise architecture. The liaison also stated that, since May 2019, the office of the CIO had established bi-weekly checkpoints with leadership and stakeholders to monitor and report progress and to document established metrics. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established a documented method and metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Agriculture demonstrated that it had established an approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes; however, it had not yet measured and reported them. The department conducted a survey in February 2020 that collected information such as the number of legacy systems that were identified and subsequently decommissioned, and the number of applications that have been eliminated as a result of application rationalization through use of enterprise architecture. The department stated that it will release the second survey in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, and the differences in the responses between the first and second surveys will be presented to the CIO Council to show the impact of enterprise architecture. The department did not state when it plans to report the results. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce has not implemented this recommendation. In April 2018, the department issued an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan; however, the department has not demonstrated that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. In January 2020, the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) stated that the department recently appointed a new CIO (acting) and was in the process of revisiting all strategic planning initiatives and implementation to ensure they are congruent with the IT strategic vision and objectives. The Office of the CIO also said it was hiring a new Chief Enterprise Architect, which would impact previous initiatives and strategies. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that it would establish a documented approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes defined in the DOD Digital Modernization Strategy by September 2020, and report outcomes by December 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, it had not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Department of Energy had not implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, the department described steps it had taken to develop its enterprise architecture. For example, it said that the department had established a Technical Reference Model, which supports processes and criteria for selecting and reviewing software across the department's headquarters. The department said it used the reference model to identify software products that could be eliminated or consolidated to achieve cost savings. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documents demonstrating that it had measured and reported architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the status of the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor has not addressed the recommendation. In August 2020, the department stated that it was evaluating processes for reviewing and assessing enterprise architecture value.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, the Department of Veterans Affairs stated that it plans to measure enterprise architecture performance by the end of March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the Department of State developed an enterprise architecture plan, which identified several benefits that may be achieved by executing the plan. These benefits included, for example, lower support and acquisition costs and reuse of technology and investments. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had measured and reported outcomes attributed to its architecture. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency has not implemented this recommendation. In December 2019, the agency stated that its chief architect and technical architecture staff were working to reformulate the enterprise architecture program and described several goals and activities that were underway. The agency also stated that the program was examining industry best practices on architecture metrics to determine which would be best for EPA's enterprise architecture program. As metrics are adopted to assess the value of the architecture program, the program will work them into the agency-wide process for performance metrics. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, NASA's Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Service and Integration said the agency was in the process of developing an enterprise architecture policy directive and procedural requirements. He anticipated that they would be completed in October 2020.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, the Small Business Administration (SBA) had not implemented this recommendation. SBA's Office of the CIO stated that it achieved IT cost savings and avoidance as a result of IT infrastructure service and support reduction and data center optimization in fiscal years 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2019. In a March 2020 memo to GAO, the Chief Information Officer explained that the agency's enterprise architecture team reviewed IT acquisition requests, which led to reducing duplicative IT investments and resulted in the cost savings and avoidance. However, the agency did not demonstrate that it had reliably measured the cost savings and avoidance. Specifically, it did not provide documentation demonstrating how it calculated most of the savings it reported.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, a Senior Analyst in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance stated that, as of January 2020, OPM's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) had established an approach for developing an enterprise architecture. The liaison also stated that, since May 2019, the office of the CIO had established bi-weekly checkpoints with leadership and stakeholders to monitor and report progress and to document established metrics. However, the agency has not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. Specifically, it had not demonstrated that it had measured architecture metrics that it had established in its April 2014 Enterprise Roadmap. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not fully addressed our recommendation. In March 2013, the office required agencies to submit annually an Enterprise Roadmap, which was to include an appendix on enterprise architecture outcomes. To prepare the appendix, the office provided agencies with a template to document architecture metrics and measurement methods. The template included examples of outcome metrics and a field where agencies were to document measurement methods. However, OMB did not provide details on the methods that agencies could use to measure architecture outcomes or require that agencies include the steps to be followed for measuring outcomes. In March 2019, OMB said that it was working with agencies to determine approaches for measuring and reporting outcomes achieved through enterprise architecture. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed the recommendation. We will continue to follow up with OMB on its efforts to implement the recommendation.
GAO-12-345, Mar 21, 2012
Phone: (404) 679-1816
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The department partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that while it supports the refinement and update of DOD Instruction 5100.73, it uses the major headquarters activity designation to identify and manage the size of organizations in order to comply with statutory limits on headquarters personnel, not as tool to manage the organizational efficiency of the department or its components. With regard to the element of the recommendation concerning contractors, the department stated that in November of 2011 it had submitted a plan to the congressional defense committees for its Inventory of Contracts for Services that establishes both near and long term actions to improve visibility over all contracted services. This plan, and subsequent guidance issued in December 2011, describes the steps being taken to account for the level of effort of contracted support, based on the activity requiring the service. With regard to the element of the recommendation to meet reporting requirements for major headquarters activities, the department stated it had incorporated this requirement into the Defense Manpower Requirements Report in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. However, as of March 2020, DOD has not completed actions to address three of the four parts of this recommendation. In September 2017, DOD completed a revised framework for major DOD headquarters activities tied to funding, but as of March 2020 has not yet updated DOD Instruction 5100.73 to reflect all major DOD headquarters activity organizations included in the revised framework. DOD has also not identified an approach to include contractor personnel as part of its headquarters reporting. For fiscal year 2020 reporting, DOD intends to rely on the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) as the basis for collecting information on contracted services. GAO has previously reported that FPDS-NG has certain limitations, including not being able to (a) identify and record more than one type of service purchased for each contracting action entered into the system, (b) identify the requiring activity specifically, and (c) determine the number of contractor full-time equivalents used to perform each service. Consequently, it is unclear the extent to which using FPDS-NG will enable DOD to determine the number of contractors and the functions they are performing in support of headquarters activities. DOD did clarify how it would respond to section 1109 of the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act to satisfy this part of the recommendation. Lastly, DOD has also not yet established time frames for updating DOD Instruction 5100.73 or for determining how contractor personnel are to be included in major DOD headquarters activity reporting.
GAO-12-317, Jan 31, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, no legislative action has been identified. Congress has not required agencies to participate in ICASS absent a business case that shows that they can obtain services outside ICASS without additional cost to the U.S. government, as GAO suggested in January 2012. GAO identified no congressional action on this matter in fiscal year 2019. In January 2014, the joint explanatory statement regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, included a direction that the Secretary of State develop, in coordination with the ICASS Service Center and participating agencies, an efficient process by which an agency participating in the ICASS program provides a cost analysis and justification for the agency's decision to opt out of any ICASS services. However, this direction does not require agencies to participate in ICASS absent such a justification. Action on this matter is important because continued duplication of administrative services limits ICASS's ability to achieve economies of scale and deliver services more efficiently.