Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment implements DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant DOD guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will oversee updates to relevant guidance related to supply processes and that they anticipate the updates to be complete by May 31, 2021. The department further noted that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will ensure updates are made to the acquisition policies, when and if appropriate. However, the department stated that its Adaptive Acquisition Framework currently provides all of the necessary flexibility required. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should implement DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant Department of the Army guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Secretary of the Army should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Army would update, as appropriate, Army guidance related to acquisition and supply upon updates to DOD's climate adaptation directive and other applicable DOD or federal regulations. However, DOD noted that it does not plan to update its acquisition guidance in response to our recommendation that DOD do so. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should implement DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant Department of the Navy guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Secretary of the Navy should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Department of the Navy had suggested that the recommendation be restated to recommend that the Department of the Navy ensure that its guidance and procedures are updated to align with DOD's directive on climate adaptation upon issuance of an updated directive. However, DOD has not identified any plans to update its directive on climate change adaptation. Thus, we continue to believe that the Department of the Navy should update its guidance related to acquisition and supply to incorporate the current guidance in DOD's climate adaptation directive, which it has not yet done. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should implement DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant Department of the Air Force guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Secretary of the Air Force should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Air Force will work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the other military services to develop specific policies that address climate-related risks to DOD contractors. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Secretaries of the military departments, and any other governmental and private-sector partners, as appropriate, determine what approaches may be feasible in conducting mission assurance related assessments of commercially owned facilities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that formal mission assurance assessments are limited in scope in order to provide additional rigor to protect DOD's most critical capabilities. However, the department stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy would work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment's Defense Contract Management Agency to better understand DOD's commercial dependencies. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Secretaries of the military departments, and any other governmental and private-sector partners, as appropriate, issue new or update existing guidance, based upon the determination of what approaches may be feasible, to clarify the steps that DOD officials involved in the mission assurance process may take to apply the mission assurance framework to commercially owned facilities, as appropriate, to include consideration of risks related to climate change and extreme weather. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that it concurs with the need to clarify steps that officials may take to apply the mission assurance framework to defense critical infrastructure and critical defense industrial base commercially owned facilities, to include consideration of risks related to climate change and extreme weather. However, the department further noted that it does not concur with doing this for all commercial facilities because conducting such assessments for all commercially owned facilities falls outside the capacity and authority of DOD to conduct mission assurance assessments. However, we had not recommended they conduct such assessments for all commercial facilities. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should explore the feasibility of requiring a corporate identification number in its inspection database and enabling its website to be searched by that number. This should include exploring the following issues: (1) which corporate identification number would be most appropriate to require; (2) options for obtaining this number from employers; and (3) options for entering this number in its database that would prevent or minimize delays in closing inspection records. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA did not state whether it agreed with this recommendation. The agency acknowledged the potential utility of obtaining a unique identifier from each employer and said it will continue to promote the collection of Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) or Tax Identification Numbers (TIN) whenever possible by issuing a revised memorandum to field staff to reinforce the importance of collecting this information. OSHA stated that it does not view EINs as confidential or protected from disclosure. However, it expressed concerns about protecting TINs and Social Security Numbers from disclosure, and noted that it would not be able to make a data field available for public search if it contained either of these numbers. OSHA also raised concerns about the financial cost associated with redesigning the agency's data system. We encourage OSHA to explore options for addressing these concerns as it further considers how to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should provide information to contracting officials to advise them that the OSHA website is a resource for information about contractors' workplace safety and health records. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and identified implementation timelines. We will monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should explore the feasibility of requiring a safety performance rating for contracts in industries that have relatively high rates of occupational injuries, such as manufacturing, construction, and ship building and repairing. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and identified implementation timelines. We will monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting , addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding procurement for goods that are predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life as revisions to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) are considered. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. The guidance does not clarify what goods qualify as being predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life. It states contracting officers should check with the requiring activity to make this determination. However, since there is no clear definition of these terms, requiring activities will not have any better insight how to apply this criterion than contracting officers. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how these terms should apply to goods..

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding full life-cycle costs, including for operations and support as revisions to the DFARS are considered. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. This guidance states it is up to the requiring activity to document that the lowest price reflects the full life cycle costs. However, through our work it was unclear to those we interviewed how to determine a full life cycle costs for services. The guidance cites DoD Instruction 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Material Management Policy for further guidance on how to determine life cycle costs for services. This policy does not clarify how life cycle costs should be applied to services. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how this requirement should be implemented by contracting officers as the guidance issued does not do this.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should identify the specific types of information that would best meet the department's needs and, based on that determination, collect and analyze relevant data after contract performance is sufficiently complete to determine the extent to which contracts with incentives achieved their desired outcomes.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to address it. For example, in April 2018, the department developed a template for the military departments to use to identify specific types of information to collect. Since then, each of the military departments has initiated or planned to initiate efforts to collect and analyze information about outcomes of incentive contracts. In addition, in July 2020 DOD provided examples of selected DOD, Army, and Navy incentive contracts documented in the template previously noted. The department did not provide additional information about the Air Force's efforts, or about how DOD is analyzing the information to determine whether incentives can achieve desired outcomes. GAO has ongoing work to review DOD's use of fixed-price type contracts--including fixed-price incentive contracts--for major DOD systems, which may provide additional insights related to this recommendation.