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: "Defense audits"
GAO-21-157, Oct 13, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9869
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 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 Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-130, Apr 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of the department's information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report includes high-level descriptions of the current and target architectures, and high-level plans and schedules for transitioning from the current to the target architecture. The report states that because of the incremental approach to developing the architecture, the plans and schedules are notional and depend on several factors over which the DOD CIO has limited or no control, such as funding and changing world events, priorities, and technology. The report also describes plans to integrate the IEA with the department's business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for integrating the architectures. According to the report, for the next increment of the architecture, the department plans to develop compliance criteria and plans for developing an ontology, database, and tool suite. The department did not provide a time frame for completing the next increment. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of its information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report described planned efforts related to integrating the IEA and the business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for when the department plans to integrate the architectures.
GAO-17-85, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9869
including 5 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. The Army stated that the Accountability and Audit Readiness Directorate has completed actions to enhance its current standard operating procedures to include (1) updating its corrective action plan (CAP) database and reporting tool, (2) documenting its reporting procedures, and (3) updating its CAP template to include additional elements recommended by the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. In addition, the Army stated that its policies and procedures include steps to incorporate external financial management-related audit findings assigned to the Accountability and Audit Readiness Directorate by the Internal Review Directorate and that the existing process the Army uses to prioritize findings and the related CAPs and to monitor the progress and status of CAPs has been documented. We reviewed Army's documentation that was provided in January 2020. Army's documentation did not show that it has a process for ensuring that all financial management related findings and recommendations are identified and tracked. To implement this recommendations Army needs to enhance their policies and procedures related to tracking and monitoring the status of these audit findings.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the Air Force stated that it continues to develop a process for identifying and tracking financial management-related findings and recommendations from all audit sources by updating its process guidance. In August 2019, we received draft guidance that Air Force is developing as guidance and procedures for a universe of financial management-related findings and recommendations. In January 2020, we also received a list of the Air Force deficiencies being tracked in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) database. After assessing the provided documentation, we found that the draft does not include procedures for identifying GAO, DODOIG, and Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) findings and the database did not include deficiencies identified by those external auditors. As a result of our review of the documentation provided, we determined that the actions taken were not sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the Air Force stated that its Air Force Deficiency Remediation Tracking processes and guides were being refined. In December 2019, Air Force provided a document titled "NFR Prioritization Process." We found that this document included Air Force's priority categories. However, the document does not include information on determining the priority level or applying the priority levels when addressing the deficiencies. We also received a copy of Air Force's guide for the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) process dated July 2019. We found that this guide does not fully incorporate CAP development for deficiencies from all sources. Additionally, the guide does not provide information on the process for (1) determining resources and other requirements for remediating the deficiency, (2) conducting a cost benefit analysis, and (3) developing criteria for validating that the deficiency has been remediated. The guide also includes a template for conducting a root cause analysis. However, the instructions for conducting a root cause analysis are somewhat limited for determining the initial cause or underlying reason for the deficiency. Per the guide, the Air Force uses the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) database to monitor and report on Air Force's deficiencies and remediation CAP status. We obtained a listing of the NFRs and related CAPS in the database as of December 2019. We found that deficiencies from all audit sources were not included in the listing, only the independent public accountant's NFRs. The results of our review of a limited number of CAPs indicate that Air Force staff does not always comply with the Air Force's CAP requirements. As a result of our assessment of the Air Force documentation, we determined that the actions taken were not sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD stated that it solicits input on a bi-monthly basis, on critical capability corrective action plans (CAPs) at a summary level. This information is provided routinely at regularly scheduled FIAR Governance Board meetings. DOD also stated that an updated notice of finding and recommendation (NFR) form template is being developed and will be provided to the military services to use for reporting this information so that it will include the recommended standard data elements outlined in OMB Circular A-123 to provide greater transparency into the nature of remediation plans. DOD also stated that FIAR Guidance will be updated to explicitly state that military services should include the OMB recommended standard data elements in CAPs. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to provide documentation that shows that the military services are able to provide a summary of key information in the corrective action plans that at a minimum contains data elements recommended by the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. .
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD, the military services already provide summary-level updates on their critical capability corrective action plans (CAPs) at FIAR Governance Board meetings. It also stated that the template that is used to present CAPs to the FIAR Governance Board meetings at the summary level has been updated to align CAPs to critical capabilities. DOD still needs to address how all of the data elements from the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123 will be summarized or otherwise reported for all CAPs pertaining to critical capabilities across the Department. In addition, DOD stated that because the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) takes responsibility for maintaining, monitoring, and reporting on the status of CAPs for the service providers and other defense organizations and of DOD-wide issues, the Comptroller will also summarize this information. However, DOD has not clarified what information from the military services will be summarized. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to provide documentation that shows the Comptroller has prepared a consolidated CAP management summary on a bimonthly basis.
GAO-16-47, Aug 19, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9869
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has actions planned, taken, or under way to prepare a quantitative drilldown. In September 2017, Navy provided a listing of certain systems (DCAS, GLs, DDRS-B, and DDRS-AFS) it considered as Level 1 assessable units. However, the listing did not include a drilldown from the financial statement amounts through DDRS-AFS, DDRS-B, and DCAS to the receipt and disbursement source systems. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that Navy is implementing a new system that will enable them to complete a quantitative drill down for its Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT). The new system is not expected to be fully implemented until March 2021. In the interim, certain FBWT reconciliations are performed at DFAS, that may provide a drilldown capability of FBWT as reported in financial statements to the applicable general ledger amounts.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has actions planned, taken, or under way to prioritize audit readiness efforts for key Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) systems. In September 2017, Navy provided documentation for three systems, but this documentation did not address corrective actions for ineffective controls and the expected completion dates. Further, during our audit, Navy provided a list of 22 relevant systems. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that they are preparing an audit strategy for each system, and documenting control activities and computer controls for significant systems. We will continue to follow-up on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it had actions planned, taken, or under way to document control activities, information technology general computer controls for significant systems, systems documentation locations, and hardware, software, and interfaces. In September 2017, Navy provided documentation for 3 systems, but the documentation did not include system certifications or accreditations; system, end user, and systems documentation locations; and hardware, software, and interfaces. Further, during our audit, Navy provided a list of 22 relevant systems. In July 2020, a Navy official told us that they are preparing an audit strategy for each system, and documenting control activities and computer controls for significant systems. We will continue to monitor Navy's progress addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it had actions planned, taken, or under way to prepare an internal control assessment document. In September 2017, Navy provided support for actions taken to address this recommendation. However, the documentation provided did not summarize controls by assessable unit (DCAS, DDRS-B, or systems). Instead controls were listed by function (Treasury Reporting, Audit Readiness, and Departmental Reporting). In July 2020, a Navy official stated that documentation of overall Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) controls is in process and they are finalizing the Risk Control Matrix for FBWT to include controls at DFAS and at Treasury. The Rick Control Matrix is estimated to be completed by the end of August 2020. We will continue to monitor the progress in addressing this recommendation.