Recommendation: To minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication and more efficiently use DOD's U.S. distribution centers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (or the subsequent Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment), in conjunction with the Director of DLA, and the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, to assess and direct the implementation of actions, as appropriate, that can be taken using existing authorities to close, realign, or dispose of existing infrastructure.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. DOD began reviewing its secondary item inventory warehousing in July 2017 to consolidate underused distribution centers. In February 2018, DOD officials stated that the department will conduct three site studies by fiscal year 2019 to assess the viability and any potential savings from consolidation at these locations. In April 2019, DOD officials stated that the site studies had been completed and they anticipate a final report in late May 2019.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to align DOD's data on department-wide military and civilian positions that have headquarters-related DOD function codes with the revised definition of major DOD headquarters activities in order to provide the department with reliable data to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining or further analysis.

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.

Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to, once this definition is published in DOD guidance, collect reliable information on the costs associated with functions within headquarters organizations--through revisions to the Inherently Governmental / Commercial Activities Inventory or another method--in order to provide the department with detailed information for use in estimating resources associated with specific headquarters functions, and in making decisions, monitoring performance, and allocating resources.

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.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure the military departments' efforts to integrate services into the programming process and senior service managers efforts to develop forecasts on service contract spending provide the department with consistent data, the Secretary of Defense should establish a mechanism, such as a working group of key stakeholders--which could include officials from the programming, budgeting and requirements communities as well as the senior services managers--to coordinate these efforts.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of PCS data in service budget materials. This action should include revising existing guidance on the reporting of non-temporary storage costs, and clarifying existing guidance on the presentation of other PCS data.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to complete periodic evaluations of whether the PCS program is efficiently supporting DOD's requirements for assigning military personnel to new locations while reimbursing servicemembers for allowable expenses incurred during PCS moves. These periodic evaluations should identify changes in PCS per-move costs over time, factors driving such changes, and steps that could be taken to manage and control cost growth.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of data on exceptions used for PCS moves that occur prior to established time-on-station lengths. This action should include clarifying existing guidance with regard to how the services collect, maintain, and report data on exceptions for use in evaluating performance in meeting time-on-station requirements and addressing challenges related to the services' abilities to collect, maintain, and report exceptions data.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of data on waivers used for PCS moves that occur prior to established time-on-station lengths. This action should include establishing guidance for the military services to collect, maintain, and report data on waivers for use in evaluating performance in meeting time-on-station requirements and addressing challenges related to the services' abilities to collect, maintain, and report waiver data.

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.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Commerce should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Commerce had not implemented this recommendation. In July 2018, the department provided an inventory that shows, by service provider and department component, the number of devices per rate plan and monthly rate; however, the inventory did not include the number of voice minutes, gigabytes of data, and text messages allowed per line per month. Furthermore, the department had not demonstrated that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Commerce should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the department had not addressed the recommendation. In July 2018, the department described steps it was taking to identify lines that were inactive for a period of three or more continuous months (zero usage). However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has established documented procedures that address the elements of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Defense should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of January 2020, the department had not implemented it. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that such an inventory has merits, but that maintaining one comes at considerable expense and effort. The department also stated, in 2016, that while it does not maintain a single, centralized device level inventory, the military departments track and manage their own devices and services . As we stated in our report, the inventory need not be generated centrally at the headquarters level; the department can compile a comprehensive inventory using its components' complete inventories. As of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that all its components had inventories of unique devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Defense should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation; and has taken steps to address it. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that developing an inventory of mobile device contracts has merits, especially in a time of restricted government spending. The department also described several efforts it had undertaken to enhance mobile device management. However, as we stated in our report, any approach to managing mobile device contracts will be hampered by the lack of complete information on the contracts that are already in place. In August 2018, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department had not demonstrated that the inventory included all its components' mobile service contracts. In August 2019, the department described steps it was taking to ensure that it has a complete inventory of mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security developed an asset and inventory management plan for managing devices under its enterprise blanket purchase agreement. The plan includes procedures for assessing devices for zero usage; however, it does not include procedures for assessing over and under usage. The department also has not demonstrated that it has established procedures for devices not covered by its enterprise blanket purchase agreement.We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Interior should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Interior has not demonstrated that it has fully implemented this recommendation. As of January 2020, the department demonstrated that only one of its components, the Bureau of Reclamation, had an inventory of mobile devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Interior should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Interior had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed this recommendation. In August 2019, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Attorney General should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Justice has made progress implementing this recommendation; however, more remains to be done. Specifically, in response to our findings, in April 2015, the department's Chief Information Officer issued a memo that required components to establish procedures for regular reviews of invoices for wireless services to identify unused and underused devices or services, as well as any over-usage charges to service plans. One of the components we reviewed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, established procedures in July 2016 to monitor mobile device usage. In addition, the Justice Management Division (JMD) established procedures in May 2019 that apply to JMD as well some but not all other components. The other component we reviewed in our report, the Drug Enforcement Agency, had not established procedures that address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of State should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not demonstrated that it has implemented this recommendation. The department has inventories of mobile device; however, the inventories do not include the services associated with each device. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of State should ensure a reliable department-wide inventory of mobile service contracts is maintained.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not implemented this recommendation. In June 2019, the department said it has a Telecom Expense Management System which can be used to document an inventory of domestic service contracts; however, the department did not provide the inventory. Furthermore, the department did not demonstrate that it has an inventory of international service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of Transportation should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Transportation had not addressed the recommendation. In December 2019, an official from the department's Audit Relations and Program Improvement office stated that all the department's telecommunication devices are managed through two programs and that these programs have mechanisms in place to ensure that telecommunications are managed in an effective and efficient manner. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Treasury should ensure an inventory of mobile devices and services is established department-wide (i.e., all components' devices and associated services are accounted for).

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, the department stated that it had established enterprise-wide procurement vehicles for mobile devices. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the agency effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure a complete inventory of mobile devices and associated services is established.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not implemented the recommendation. We reported in May 2015, that NASA had an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information which included most, but not all, of the devices used by the agency. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that the agency was in the process of enrolling devices in a new mobile device management tool, and that when the approximately 15 percent of devices that are not currently on NASA's new End-User Services Technology contract are brought on the contract, NASA will have a monthly deliverable depicting the services of all mobile devices. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the agency effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure a reliable inventory of mobile service contracts is developed and maintained.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that NASA had established, on September 1, 2019, the NASA End-User Services and Technology contract to procure mobile services, but as of November 2019, had not yet included 15 percent of its devices on the new contract. We will continue to monitor NASA's efforts to develop and maintain a mobile services contract inventory as described in our report.

Recommendation: To help the agency effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established agency-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that as part of enterprise mobility service contract deliverables, NASA requires monthly reports to monitor and optimize usage (zero, under, and over). NASA's OCIO also stated that the agency established role-based privileges to monitor and report on this activity agency-wide. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established procedures to assess device usage in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the department effectively manage spending on mobile devices and services, the Secretary of the Treasury should ensure procedures to monitor and control spending are established department-wide. Specifically, ensure that (1) procedures include assessing devices for zero, under, and over usage; (2) personnel with authority and responsibility for performing the procedures are identified; and (3) the specific steps to be taken to perform the process are documented.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, an official from the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that the department was collecting and analyzing information on voice and data utilization. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had established procedures in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the Navy has adequate oversight of on-order excess inventory termination decisions and necessary performance measures consistent with DOD guidance, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, to incorporate the graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reasons for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module that is under development.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2019, Naval Supply Systems Command has taken some steps, such as defining the requirement and piloting some aspects of the effort, to incorporate graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reason for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module. However, this capability is not implemented into the automated termination module, according to Naval Supply Systems Command officials. Navy Supply Systems Command provided information on its plans to implement this capability in fiscal year 2020 and we will continue to monitor their efforts to address this implementation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to establish guidelines on what constitutes a "current" ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes; the types of programs, if any, that do not require ACAT designations; and whether the rules for identifying current MDAPs would be appropriate for ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. Since that time, DOD has taken some steps to implement this recommendation, but has not established department-wide guidelines as we recommended. Starting in September 2018, DOD began providing the military departments with a capability to identify ACAT II and III programs using the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system. The DAVE system is now considered to be a trusted source for ACAT II and III program data. DOD, in consultation with the military departments, established standard data elements for collection across ACAT II and III programs for inclusion in DAVE, but the military departments determine individually what constitutes a "current" program and the types of programs that do not require ACAT designations. As of August 2019, the Army and Navy have established guidance regarding what constitutes an active ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to determine what metrics should be used and what data should be collected on ACAT II and III programs to measure cost and schedule performance; and whether the use of DAMIR and the MDAP selected acquisition report format may be appropriate for collecting data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation, but has yet to determine at the department level what metrics should be collected on ACAT II and III cost and schedule performance as we recommended. DOD determined that the use of the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system, which is closely related to DAMIR, was appropriate to collect information on ACAT II and III programs and has made that system available to the military departments. Specifically, DOD provided the military departments with the capability to identify ACAT II and III programs in DAVE/DAMIR in September 2018 and made the DAVE/DAMIR Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) workflow tool for cost and schedule data collection available for components' use in April 2019. However, according to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the military departments are responsible for individually determining what cost and schedule metrics to collect and monitor for ACAT II and III programs. According to December 2018 Army guidance, the Army will require all ACAT II and III programs use DOD's APB tool by the end of fiscal year 2019 to capture baseline cost, schedule, and performance parameters for ACAT II and III programs. According to Navy officials, the Navy is developing an APB tool in its for a future update of its acquisition information system that will collect APB cost and schedule information for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to assess the reliability of data collected on ACAT II and III programs and work with PEOs to develop a strategy to improve procedures for the entry and maintenance of data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back on the reliability of the data and plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Assistant Secretary of Defense directed the military departments and DOD components to assess the reliability of ACAT II and III data, but in July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on the results of the assessments reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Since that time, as of September 2018, DOD began providing standard data elements and definitions of those elements that it collects for ACAT II and III program identification in order to improve the consistency of data. However, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it is still up to the military departments to ensure the accuracy of data entered. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to develop implementation plans to coordinate and execute component initiatives to improve data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components provide an update on their plans to improve the availability and quality of ACAT II and III data. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on an assessment of the information reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment reiterated in August 2019 that while DOD now provides a department-wide system to be used for collecting basic program data for ACAT II and III programs, it remains the responsibility of the military departments to enter complete and accurate data. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force and Commander of SOCOM to establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with APB requirements in DOD policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to APB requirements for ACAT II and III programs. DOD has taken some steps related to this recommendation. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review their mechanisms for establishing and enforcing the APB requirements for all ACAT II and III programs. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, in 2019, DOD made its DAVE/DAMIR APB workflow tool available for military department use, and the Air Force elected to use the tool to create and track APBs for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to improve component procedures for notifying the Defense Acquisition Executive of programs with a cost estimate within 10 percent of ACAT I cost thresholds.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to notification requirements for programs approaching ACAT I cost thresholds. The Army and Navy have reiterated existing guidance and the Air Force is evaluating additional actions it might take to improve its notification procedures. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed in July 2018 that it does not plan to take additional actions to implement this recommendation, and as of August 2019, that office has not directed DOD components to improve their processes as we recommended .We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to require MAIS programs to establish their first acquisition program baseline within 2 years of beginning work on the programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD had made limited progress addressing our recommendation for business system programs; however, it had not addressed the recommendation for non-business system programs. Specifically, the department updated its instruction on business systems requirements and acquisition to include, among other things, guidance on establishing baselines against which to measure progress for developing needed business capability. However, the instruction did not explicitly require that a program baseline be established within 2 years. Specifically, according to the instruction, baselines may be established at the program level or at the release level (i.e., for a manageable subset of functionality in support of the business capability), within 2 years after programs have validated a business capability is needed and received approval to conduct solution analysis. If at the program level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of the first release or deployment. If at the release level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of each release or deployment. In January 2020, the department also issued interim policy for software-intensive systems. However, while the interim policy requires program managers to develop an acquisition strategy that includes delivering software within one year from the date funds are first obligated to acquire or develop new software capability, the interim policy does not require software-intensive system programs to establish a program baseline within 2 years.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD's milestone decision process, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in collaboration with the military service acquisition executives, program executive officers, and program managers to, as a longer-term effort, select several current or new major defense acquisition programs to pilot, on a broader scale, different approaches for streamlining the entire milestone decision process, with the results evaluated and reported for potential wider use. The pilot programs should consider the following: (1) Defining the appropriate information needed to support milestone decisions while still ensuring program accountability and oversight. The information should be based on the business case principles needed for well-informed milestone decisions including well defined requirements, reasonable life-cycle cost estimates, and a knowledge-based acquisition plan. (2) Developing an efficient process for providing this information to the milestone decision authority by (a) minimizing any reviews between the program office and the different functional staff offices within each chain of command level and (b) establishing frequent, regular interaction between the program office and milestone decision makers, in lieu of documentation reviews, to help expedite the process.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and as of February 2020 the Services each identified one pilot program for implementation of streamlined acquisition processes. The Army chose the Improved Turbine Engine Program; the Navy chose the MQ-25 Stingray Unmanned Carrier Aviation Program; and the Air Force chose the MH-139 Grey Wolf Program. In July 2020, DOD indicated that specific streamlining initiatives for these programs will be developed in the near future after Executive Review at the Service level and after the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) has been informed.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Recommendation: To help ensure DOD's approach to joint basing achieves the goals as outlined by DOD in its justification for the 2005 BRAC recommendation and leverages additional opportunities to reduce duplication of effort that could in turn generate cost savings and increased efficiencies, Congress should consider directing the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in collaboration with the military services and joint bases, to evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether the current goals, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate, or whether goals should be revised; communicate these goals to the military services and joint bases, and adjust program activities accordingly; provide direction to the joint bases on requirements for meeting program goals, including determining reporting requirements and milestones; and determine any next steps for joint basing, including whether to expand it to other installations.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.

Recommendation: To eliminate unnecessary program duplication and to achieve increased efficiencies and potential savings within the integrated MHS, Congress should terminate the Secretary of Defense's authority to contract with the USFHP designated providers in a manner consistent with a reasonable transition of affected USFHP enrollees into TRICARE's regional managed care program or other health care programs, as appropriate.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2017, no actions have been taken.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to further develop guidance for cost elements that users have identified as challenging to calculate, such as general and administrative, overhead, advertising and recruiting, and training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office is updating fiscal year 2017 estimates in its Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) system to reflect separate officer and enlisted training costs. If more specific cost estimates are required, users of FCoM are directed to cost estimating tools operated by the military departments.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to develop business rules for estimating the full cost of National Guard and Reserve personnel.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report in Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, a cost estimating function for Reserve Component personnel far exceeds the combination of variables for developing active component and DOD civilian cost estimates. Due to the scope of the Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) contract, OSD(CAPE) has not adopted this recommendation in terms of a web-based application. However, OSD(CAPE) intends to address general business rules for Reserve Component cost estimates in the next DoDI revision.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's methodology for estimating and comparing the full cost of its various workforces, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, in coordination with the department's Office of the Actuary and appropriate federal actuarial offices, to reevaluate the inclusion and quantification of pension, retiree health care costs, and other relevant costs of an actuarial nature and make revisions as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilians and Contractors, OSD(CAPE) has reviewed the inclusion of payments that the government makes to retirement and health benefits. All identified costs that are attributable to current retirees and past service of active civilian and military personnel, such as unfunded liabilities, are being revised in the cost estimating guidelines. OSD(CAPE) intends to incorporate these changes in the next DoDI revision and coordinate a review with the Office of the DoD Actuaty.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's estimates and comparisons of the full cost of its military, civilian, and contractor workforces and to improve DOD's ability to estimate contractor support costs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, consistent with established practices for developing credible cost estimates, to research the data sources it is currently using and reassess its contractor support data sources for use when determining contractor support costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: According to DOD's April 2017 report on Comparing the Cost of Civilian and Contractors, the department's efforts to improve data sources are ongoing.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's corrosion-prevention and control program, and to enhance DOD in its oversight of the status and potential benefits of its equipment-related corrosion projects, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should require the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to revise the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan or other guidance to require that the military departments include in all follow-on reports the details of measures of achievement other than ROI, such as the features, results, and potential benefits of the project.

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

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. As of March 2016, DOD had not implemented this recommendation and stated that the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan currently provide sufficient guidance in this regard. As of March 2019, DOD has decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to DOD Corrosion Office officials, they plan to list measures of achievement for the military departments to follow on the departments' corrosion project in a new DOD manual on corrosion. The Office's goal is to create this new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to assess their respective service-level and program office capabilities relating to an open systems approach and work with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering to develop short-term and long-term strategies to address any capability gaps identified. Strategies could include the Navy's cross-cutting approach where a team of a few technical experts within the Naval Air Systems Command could be available to work with program offices, as necessary, to help develop open systems plans.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. A DOD official noted that the department's understanding of an open systems approach has evolved since our recommendation was made and each military service has established working groups and communities of practice related to the implementation of a modular open systems approach. In addition, the official noted that Defense Acquisition University (DAU) curriculum addresses both open systems approaches and intellectual property, and that its course on open systems approaches was updated in 2018. DOD Human Capital Initiatives officials also indicated that DOD would be conducting a competency assessment of the the engineering workforce across the department, which would provide an indication of the open system capabilities at the service and program office level. However, as of August 2020, that assessment has yet to be conducted and therefore it remains unclear the extent to which capability gaps exist.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document program-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study with regard to the other weapon systems identified--specifically, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, CH-53K helicopter, Joint High Speed Vessel, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle--and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the CPC programs for these systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented program-specific recommendations from the corrosion study for the other weapon systems identified in its report. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. These actions may improve the corrosion prevention and control planning for the weapon systems identified in DOD's study. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. According to Corrosion Office officials, they interacted with two of five weapon-systems programs on corrosion-related matters. One of these weapon-system programs, per Corrosion Office officials, was eventually canceled. In addition to updating the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and Equipment in 2014, officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). Also, according to Corrosion Office officials, procedures for evaluating acquisition programs will be included in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal of completing this instruction update and creating the new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document Air Force-and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of these services' corrective actions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented Air Force- and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. Further, the Air Force and the Navy have both taken actions to address the DOD-wide recommendations from the corrosion study. These actions may improve corrosion prevention and control planning for Air Force and Navy programs. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) or other appropriate guidance related to the process or procedures for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of Corrosion Prevention Control planning for weapon systems, particularly related to how the military services will accomplish this within their increased weapon system oversight role. In addition, per Corrosion Office officials, this information will be addressed in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Department of Defense is taking full advantage of the cost savings that can be achieved by implementing CPC projects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) to update applicable guidance, such as DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure or the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan to further define the responsibilities of the military departments' Corrosion Executives, to include more specific oversight and review of the project proposals before and during the project selection process.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has not updated DOD Instruction 5000.67 - Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, or other applicable guidance since the publication of our report. DOD did not concur with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. Corrosion Office officials agree that Corrosion Executives' responsibilities in the Corrosion Prevention Project selection process have to be further defined. They plan to clearly document the selection procedures and participation of the Corrosion Executive in an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) and in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.