Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to issue a requirement to their installations to systematically track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to issue a requirement to their installations to systematically track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to issue a requirement to their installations to systematically track the costs associated with extreme weather events and climate change. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should take steps to administer the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey, or a similar instrument, to all relevant locations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should take steps to administer the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey, or a similar instrument, to all relevant locations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should take steps to administer the Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey, or a similar instrument, to all relevant locations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, an official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations & Environment) stated that because DOD non-concurred with this recommendation, the department has no plans to implement it. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department intends to implement it. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will continue to follow up on it, if DOD decides to take relevant actions.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement DOD goals and plans by incorporating climate change adaptation into service-level guidance and required training for the development of installation-level plans, including master plans and natural resource plans, at all locations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, it was continuing to review DOD Directive (DODD) 4715.21 on climate resilience; DOD reissued the directive in August 2018. The directive requires the military departments to incorporate adaptation to climate change impacts into their planning for facilities. Further, DOD has incorporated adaptation into other guidance that applies to each of the departments. For example, with revisions to DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria for Master Planning and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, as well the issuance of the guide "Climate Adaptation for DOD Natural Resource Managers," DOD has instructed the military departments' planners to incorporate adaptation into installation-level plans. Further, in 2020 DOD issued guidance that requires the military departments to use a DOD database on sea level changes in their planning for coastal infrastructure (sea level change is one impact of climate change). However, as of June 2020, the Air Force had not provided evidence of required training for installation-level planners that incorporates the DOD guidance discussed in this summary. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will review evidence of such training if that evidence becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement DOD goals and plans by incorporating climate change adaptation into service-level guidance and required training for the development of installation-level plans, including master plans and natural resource plans, at all locations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, it was continuing to review DOD Directive (DODD) 4715.21 on climate resilience; DOD reissued the directive in August 2018. The directive requires the military departments to incorporate adaptation to climate change impacts into their planning for facilities. Further, DOD has incorporated adaptation into other guidance that applies to each of the departments. For example, with revisions to DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria for Master Planning and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, as well the issuance of the guide "Climate Adaptation for DOD Natural Resource Managers," DOD has instructed the military departments' planners to incorporate adaptation into installation-level plans. Further, in 2020, DOD issued guidance that requires the military departments to use a DOD database on sea level changes in their planning for coastal infrastructure (sea level change is one impact of climate change). However, as of June 2020, the Navy had not provided evidence of required training for installation-level planners that incorporates the DOD guidance discussed in this summary. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will review evidence of such training if that evidence becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement DOD goals and plans by incorporating climate change adaptation into service-level guidance and required training for the development of installation-level plans, including master plans and natural resource plans, at all locations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, it was continuing to review DOD Directive (DODD) 4715.21 on climate resilience; DOD reissued the directive in August 2018. The directive requires the military departments to incorporate adaptation to climate change impacts into their planning for facilities. Further, DOD has incorporated adaptation into other guidance that applies to each of the departments. For example, with revisions to DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria for Master Planning and High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements, as well the issuance of the guide "Climate Adaptation for DOD Natural Resource Managers," DOD has instructed the military departments' planners to incorporate adaptation into installation-level plans. Further, in 2020, DOD issued guidance that requires the military departments to use a DOD database on sea level changes in their planning for coastal infrastructure (sea level change is one impact of climate change). However, as of June 2020, the Army had not provided evidence of required training for installation-level planners that incorporates the DOD guidance discussed in this summary. Thus, the recommendation remains open and we will review evidence of such training if that evidence becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should integrate climate change data and projections into the Unified Facilities Criteria standards and periodically revise those standards based on any new projections, as appropriate. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to work with the military departments to evaluate how best to incorporate resilience measures into Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs), as appropriate. DOD also stated that UFCs are reviewed and revised on a rolling basis. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence of climate change data and projections integrated into UFCs. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as UFCs are updated, we will assess the extent to which the revised versions addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should integrate climate change data and projections into the Unified Facilities Criteria standards and periodically revise those standards based on any new projections, as appropriate. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to work with the military departments to evaluate how best to incorporate resilience measures into Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs), as appropriate. DOD also stated that UFCs are reviewed and revised on a rolling basis. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence of climate change data and projections integrated into UFCs. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as UFCs are updated, we will assess the extent to which the revised versions addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should integrate climate change data and projections into the Unified Facilities Criteria standards and periodically revise those standards based on any new projections, as appropriate. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Office of the Secretary of Defense continues to work with the military departments to evaluate how best to incorporate resilience measures into Unified Facilities Criteria (UFCs), as appropriate. DOD also stated that UFCs are reviewed and revised on a rolling basis. As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence of climate change data and projections integrated into UFCs. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as UFCs are updated, we will assess the extent to which the revised versions addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), the geographic combatant commands, the sub-unified commands, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to consider climate change adaptation as they develop DOD's position for future negotiations with host-nation governments on cost-sharing activities, when relevant or appropriate. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Department is continuing to review and update the processes and criteria governing host-nation cost-sharing negotiations to strengthen or incorporate resilience measures. Since each bilateral agreement is unique, these must be completed on a case-by-case basis. Further, DOD noted that any updates would occur on a "rolling basis." As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department has engaged in such updates. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as we become aware of new or updated host-nation cost-sharing agreements, we will assess the extent to which they (or the processes and criteria governing them) address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to issue guidance, as appropriate, that calls for more formal coordination mechanisms related to climate change adaptation, such as memorandums of understanding, between DOD installations and surrounding host-nation communities. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2017, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. According to a July 2018 Corrective Action Plan provided by DOD, the Department is continuing to review guidance for establishing agreements between host-nation communities and DOD installations. Further, DOD noted that any updates would occur on a "rolling basis." As of June 2020, DOD has not provided evidence that the department has engaged in such updates. Thus, the recommendation remains open and as we become aware of new or updated agreements between host-nation communities and DOD installations, we will assess the extent to which they (or the guidance governing them) address the recommendation.

Recommendation: To enable the department to enhance its visibility over contractor personnel for whom it may become responsible in the event of contingency and other applicable operations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, update accountability guidance clarifying the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for in a steady-state environment.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2020, has not yet taken steps to implement it. DOD stated that DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, is being updated, and will include guidance on the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. The department also stated it would update Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3150.13C, Joint Personnel Reporting Structure-Personnel Manual, to clarify the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. As of September 2020, neither of these guidance documents had been updated. This recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that combatant commands are not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue guidance that clarifies the foreign-vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including the operational conditions under which a foreign-vendor vetting cell should be established.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation but as of September 2020, has not implemented it. In its response to our report, DOD agreed that the development and issuance of overarching guidance and partially concurs with the development and issuance of guidance that clarifies the foreign vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including operational conditions under which a foreign vendor vetting cell should be established. In April 2018, DOD issued Directive-Type Memorandum 18-002, Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy and Authorization of Additional Access to Records. In August 2020, DOD officials said that they had drafted department-wide vendor vetting guidance (now known as vendor threat mitigation), but had not yet issued it. Since the guidance has not been issued, the recommendation will remain open at this time.

Recommendation: To ensure that PACOM is not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, while awaiting DOD guidance on vendor vetting, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM commander to consider developing vendor vetting guidance as other combatant commands have done, to prepare for the event that PACOM becomes actively engaged in hostilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2019, has not yet taken the steps necessary to implement it.. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to establish comprehensive readiness rebuilding goals to guide readiness rebuilding efforts and a strategy for implementing identified goals, to include resources needed to implement the strategy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation in our draft report. In our draft, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense provide direction to the U.S. Marine Corps, in addition to the Secretary of the Navy; DOD stated that separate guidance to the U.S. Marine Corps was unnecessary because the U.S. Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. We agreed, and revised our recommendation as we finalized our report for publishing. Otherwise, in its comments on this recommendation, DOD noted that the department was currently working to define the "ready for what" for the military services which would provide the target for their readiness recovery goals. Since we reported in 2016, the military services established both readiness rebuilding goals and a strategy for implementing them. Through the department's Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have identified key readiness issues that their respective forces face and actions to address these issues. These efforts are detailed every other quarter in reports to Congress. Since the establishment of the Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have been revising their readiness rebuilding goals. GAO will continue to monitor their evolution, as well as the progress of DOD's Readiness Recovery Framework, before it closes this recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as a mission statement and long-term goals, to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations and to improve DOD's response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. Although in its comments to that report DOD agreed that it should establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations, DOD did not agree with identifying the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the lead for this recommendation. In our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet developed a strategic policy, had not yet determined which DOD organization would lead that effort, and that there was no consensus among officials we spoke with regarding which organization should lead that effort. In is comments to this update, DOD generally concurred with these findings and stated that it had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations and that the Air Force had recommended OSD form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but until the department establishes a strategic policy for the retrograde and reset of equipment that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management as we recommended in May 2016, it will not be positioned to effectively manage the retrograde and reset of equipment. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To enhance the accuracy of budget reporting to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the DOD Comptroller, to develop and require the use of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and other guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. In December 2017, DOD updated the relevant chapter of the its Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include definitions of "reset" and "retrograde." However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that despite this action, the terms retrograde and reset were not being used or defined consistently by the department and the military services. Specifically, while some services were using the term reset as defined in the regulation, others were not. In commenting on our 2018 update, DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations, which allows for a common budget framework, while retaining service flexibility to fulfill their Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip. DOD further stated that the Air Force recommended the Office of the Secretary of Defense form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We believe that these actions would be a step in the right direction, but to fully meet the intent of our May 2016 recommendation, DOD needs to take action to ensure that these terms are uniformly defined and consistently used throughout the services. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To improve Army, Navy, and Air Force planning, budgeting, and execution for retrograde and reset efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as strategies that include how a goal will be achieved, how an organization will carry out its mission, and the resources required to meet goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its response to our recommendation in GAO-16-414, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet identified a lead for this effort, and that the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment. Navy and Air Force officials further cited the need for a DOD-wide policy before they can establish service-specific plans for resetting equipment for contingency operations while Army officials told us that the Army relies on multiple guidance documents for the reset of equipment and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation plan. In its response to GAO-18-621R, DOD notes that detailed guidelines and processes for the rotation of personnel in contingency and non-contingency operations are in place, and that if a strategic policy is developed for the retrograde and reset of equipment, consideration should be given to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) as the lead. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid and that DOD also needs to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans, as we also recommended in 2016. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to disclose in the report the fact that reconstitution funding data are current as of the end of the fiscal year, identify significant changes reported in these data from year to year, and provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of May 2020, DOD did state that the statutory requirement is for the department to provide information on the status of the prepositioned stocks as of the end of the fiscal year in its fiscal year 2019 prepositioning report, the most recent annual report. Also, DOD had an explanation that the reconstitution funding data may continue to be refined after the report's submission in the report. However, the report did not identify significant changes reported in the reconstitution data from year to year or provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes. In May 2020, DOD stated it would consider adding information in future reports about whether the reconstitution data changed and associated explanations. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the fiscal year 2020 prepositioning report.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in its planned update to its War Reserve Materiel Policy document, to add language to clarify when and how risk assessments should be performed.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation. At the time our report was issued, DOD stated that it would re-evaluate the need to perform risk assessments for prepositioned war reserve material during the update of DOD Instruction 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document, and that it will determine whether changes are needed in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff risk assessment process. However, as of May 2020, DOD had not included information regarding when and how risk assessments should be performed in its DOD Instruction 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document, which it last revised in January 2019. Nor has DOD included this information in it Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 4310.10E, which it last revised in January 2020. In May 2020, DOD stated it would consider issuing a Guidance Memorandum--to supplement existing policy--that clarifies when and how risk assessments should be performed. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to include in the annual prepositioned stock report a section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information and indicates where that information can be found.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. However, as of May 2020, DOD had no section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information or indicates where that information can be found in its fiscal year 2019 prepositioning report, the most recent annual report.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to help ensure that DOD possesses the capability to collect and report statutorily required information and to clarify responsibilities and procedures, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to update SPOT provisions during the process of updating operational contract support guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2018, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness reported that an update of DOD Instruction 3020.41 is in progress, and will include updated SPOT provisions. However, as of August 2020, the updated instruction had not been issued.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD, State, and USAID's ability to track contracts and contractor personnel in contingency operations and to provide clarity about expectations for the Joint Asset Movement Management System (JAMMS) that can help improve the timeliness and reliability of data for SPOT-ES from JAMMS uploads, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the combatant commanders, to develop comprehensive guidance regarding the purpose of JAMMS and its role in supporting plans for different types of missions. Such guidance could include direction on the number and location of JAMMS terminals and how frequently JAMMS's data should be uploaded into SPOT-ES to meet DOD's information needs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated that it agreed to provide clarity regarding the purpose and use of JAMMS to improve the timeliness and reliability of JAMMS data, though it did not agree that such guidance could include direction on the number and location of JAMMS terminals and how frequently JAMMS's data should be uploaded into SPOT-ES. DOD stated that it would revise language in DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, to reflect in policy the requirement to use the entire SPOT Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES), which includes JAMMS. DOD also stated that the combatant commander should establish the requirements for terminal quantities and locations and for data upload schedules based on operational needs in the relevant theater. We agreed with DOD that the combatant commands need flexibility based on operational requirements. In August 2018, the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics & Materiel Readiness reported that the update to DOD Instruction 3020.41 is in progress and will clarify information on the JAMMS capability. However, as of August 2020, the updated instruction had not been issued. Updated SPOT-ES Business Rules dated May 10, 2018 incorporate the role of JAMMS in maintaining visibility of contractor personnel.

Recommendation: To further the integration of operational contract support into all areas of the operation planning process, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to focus its training about operational contract support, which is currently focused on the logistics planners, on training all planners at the combatant commands and components as necessary.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD has taken steps to focus OCS training to all planners, including those outside the logistics directorate. In December 2015, the Joint Staff J7 certified the Joint OCS Planning and Execution (JOPEC) course of instruction for Joint training. The Joint Staff, per this training certification, is working with the Joint Deployment Training Center and the Joint Force Staff College to provide student administrative and course catalog support for future JOPEC training. Additionally, OSD officials stated in August 2019 that the updated OCS instruction will also address training for planners beyond the logistics directorate; officials anticipated the instruction being issued in 2020 but as of September 2020, it had not yet been issued. We will continue to monitor these efforts and this recommendation will remain open at this time.

Recommendation: To help ensure the department maintains its critical skills and competencies, when planning for and implementing future civilian workforce actions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to involve functional community managers and to the extent possible, use information from gap assessments of its critical skills and competencies as they are completed to make informed decisions for possible future reductions or justify the size of the force that it has.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2017, the Associate Director, Total Force Requirements & Sourcing Policies; OUSD(P&R), stated that the Department has taken some actions and that there are ongoing efforts in this area. As of November 2019, DOD has taken no further action. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better understand the extent to which deployed DOD civilian employees have access to needed medical care, as appropriate, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Combatant Commander of U.S. Central Command to clarify the level of care that deployed DOD civilian employees can expect in theater, including their eligibility for routine care.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, DOD officials responsible for policy concerning deployed civilians clarified that DOD policy states deployed civilians are eligible for medical care at the same level and scope as military personnel. However, as of November 2019 they were unable to confirm whether policy in U.S. Central Command reflects this requirement. .

Recommendation: To allow Congress to better oversee management of the nuclear security enterprise and to improve NNSA's management information with respect to the base capabilities necessary to ensure nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and reliable, the Administrator of NNSA should, once the Stockpile Services work breakdown structure reflects a product or capability basis, use this work breakdown structure to develop product/capability cost estimates that adequately justify the congressional budget request for Stockpile Services.

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

Comments: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA restructured its budget starting with its fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials. GAO, through ongoing work, is continuing to monitor NNSA's development of cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.