Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command fully analyzes the use of overtime among shipyard production shops, and updates workforce requirements to avoid the consistent use of overtime to meet planned maintenance requirements. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command identify a timeframe for completing the development of metrics for its Shipyard Performance to Plan initiative and complete the development of metrics to address the main factors contributing to maintenance delays and improve the timely completion of ship maintenance at Navy shipyards. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command develop and implements goals, action plans, milestones, and a monitoring process for its Shipyard Performance to Plan initiative to address the main factors contributing to maintenance delays and improving the timely completion of ship maintenance at Navy shipyards. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Air Systems Command and Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers effectively use historical data to analyze turnaround time and establish accurate turnaround time targets for fixed-wing aircraft depot maintenance packages. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Commander, Naval Air Forces and Commander, Naval Air Force, Pacific provide depot planners regular reporting on fixed-wing aircraft maintenance performed outside the Navy aviation depots by an operational unit or at an intermediate maintenance facility to ensure they have information on the current condition and depot maintenance needs of individual aircraft. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Air Systems Command and Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers establish formal processes and related guidance for communication and coordination between depot stakeholders to inform maintenance requirements planning. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Navy's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should establish an analysis plan for the evaluation of OPN-funded pilot program availabilities, based on the leading practices for pilot programs. This analysis plan should identify opportunities to evaluate schedule outcomes of pilot program availabilities as compared to non-pilot program availabilities and document a process for evaluating lessons learned from the pilot program (Recommendation 1).

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

Comments: The Department of the Navy concurred with our recommendation in May 2020, stating that it would establish an analysis plan for evaluating Other Procurement, Navy-funded pilot program availabilities. In July 2020, the Director, Maintenance & Modernization, within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs, stated that the Navy has drafted this analysis plan, which is now undergoing required Department of Defense (DOD) reviews. The Director stated that he expects this review process to be completed sometime in late summer 2020. Once complete, he stated that his office will provide the analysis plan to GAO for review to confirm that it satisfies our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update existing operational availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When revising these requirements, the Navy should set operational availability requirements that: (1) are based on failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions and (2) are set at the mission level instead of ship level. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply only to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process. While important steps towards improving the requirements setting process, DOD officials did not state whether any policy changes would apply to current shipbuilding programs. As we discussed in our report, at least four ship classes have plans for a new flight, block, and/or major modification. DOD and the Navy may miss key opportunities to improve the Navy's sustainment requirements if it excludes existing programs that have established requirements but have yet to start design or construction.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update the materiel availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When developing or revising these requirements, the Navy should set materiel availability requirements that fully capture all factors that could preclude a ship from being ready when needed. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once the Navy revises its sustainment requirements, to ensure that shipbuilding programs report operational availability and materiel availability requirements in Selected Acquisition Reports, and alternatives to the Selected Acquisition Reports, for Congress. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and will report operational and materiel availability in the Selected Acquisition Reports based on new definitions in DOD guidance. Therefore, we plan to close this recommendation once DOD updates its definitions and reports numbers in the SAR based on these new definitions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to ensure that cost estimators follow current guidance and GAO-identified best practices and conduct sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation stating that it agrees that the use of sensitivity, uncertainty, and risk analyses is a best practice to ensure credible, defensible life cycle cost estimates. However, the Navy has yet to issue any policy updates or provide any evidence that it is conducting sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) to ensure all shipbuilding programs develop and update LCSPs, in accordance with DOD policy, that demonstrate how a ship class can be affordably operated and maintained while meeting sustainment requirements, including associated business case analyses and identifying sustainment risk. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will ensure that all shipbuilding program develop and maintain accurate and complete life cycle sustainment plans. However, as we state in our report, the Navy did not have any accurate and completed life cycle sustainment plans and, as July 2020, has not updated any of these plans.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to evaluate and implement changes to the ILA in order to position the ILA to effectively identify key sustainment risks and make recommendations for risk mitigation, which may include existing Navy proposals to change the ILA process. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: The department concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Navy will undertake a review and will approve any updated Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) policy that emphasizes risk identification and mitigation in the ILA review. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment co-chaired a system-level ILA Working Group in 2020 to rewrite the Navy ILA Handbook to address key deficiencies in the current ILA process and to emphasize the use of a readiness at cost model. ILA Handbook and associated Secretary of Navy Instructions is currently in comment adjudication. In addition, Naval Sea Systems Command is developing an ILA database that provides stakeholders with visibility and insight into their respective programs' ILA-identified sustainment risks to closure. Once completed, Navy officials state that these items should implement the needed improvements to ILAs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to ensure sustainment-related briefing topics prescribed by the Navy's acquisition policy are consistently discussed at Gate reviews. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has updated its Gate 6 sustainment sufficiency process and is executing a new Gate 7 sustainment review. In July 2020, Navy officials reported to us that the Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition will collaborate to ensure sustainment focus areas are properly emphasized at all Gate reviews. As our report states, focusing on sustainment at Gate 7 is likely insufficient to address many of the problems we found in the report. However, as of July 2020, the Navy has yet to provide us with evidence that demonstrate an increase in focus on sustainment during gate briefings or any of the new Gate 7 briefings.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to implement the sustainment program baseline initiative for shipbuilding programs and, in so doing, develop a mechanism that ensures that sustainment outcomes are a factor in shipbuilding programs' decision-making during the acquisition process. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and Navy acquisition leadership officials stated that they will review the results of the demonstration programs for the Sustainment Program Baseline initiative and implement guidance for shipbuilding and all programs in subsequent guidance and policy concerning Sustainment Program Baselines. In updating its response to our recommendations in July 2020, the Navy is planning to implement the Sustainment Program Baseline as a pilot program for ships and submarines in fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should revise SECNAVINST 5000.2 and other associated guidance to ensure PSMs are assigned to shipbuilding program offices in time to inform early acquisition decisions, including development of the program's sustainment requirements and LCSPs. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: the Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that they will ensure that Product Support Managers (PSM) are assigned to acquisition programs ahead of Milestone A in compliance with existing DoD PSM policies. However, as of July 2020, the Navy did not state that it is planning to revise SECNAVINST 5000.2.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) include all costs—such as costs for program office activities, utilities, roads, environmental remediation, historical preservation, and alternative workspace—when developing its second, more detailed, cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) use cost estimating best practices—as outlined in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide—in developing its second cost estimate, including a program baseline, work breakdown structure, a description of the methodology and key assumptions, inflation, fully addressing risk and uncertainty, and a sensitivity analysis. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) obtain an independent cost estimate of the Naval Shipyards program prior to the start of its project prioritization effort. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555), in coordination with relevant stakeholders, establish clear roles and responsibilities for the shipyards involved in the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a method to regularly collect feedback from SWOs across the fleet, such as in a survey, regarding the quality of their classroom, simulator, and at-sea training on Division Officer performance; and evaluates trends in the feedback received for the purpose of improving SWO training. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was considering a fleet-wide survey, timed for a later date when more Surface Warfare Officers have completed new training courses and implemented their training. In addition, the Navy listed other means it employs to collect feedback, such as student surveys at the end of training courses, leadership visits and conferences, and Commanding Officer updates. Our emphasis on collection of fleet-wide feedback from all Surface Warfare Officers and trend analysis remains critical to help the Navy understand the value of its training programs at various career stages and in the diverse operating environments across the fleet.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, routinely conduct regular Officer of the Deck competency assessments using samples of sufficient size and using selection methods to gauge the level of fleet-wide ship-driving proficiency trends following the implementation of the planned ship-driving training programs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was conducting the planned fleet-wide Officer of the Deck competency checks in 2020, and that it intends to use a system of ten career milestone assessments for future performance measurement. The Navy stated that it may or may not hold subsequent rounds of the Officer of the Deck competency assessments depending on performance indicated in other career milestone assessments. In our report we identified the importance of continuing the current Officer of the Deck competency assessments through at least 2024 because that is when new officers that complete the full set of new initial ship-driving training courses will be eligible for assessment. The Navy used the Officer of the Deck competency assessments in 2018 to establish a performance baseline, and we believe that the Navy should apply the same standard to measure performance changes for Surface Warfare Officers that complete new training courses moving forward.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporates these criteria into surface fleet guidance. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. However, in its official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence, the Navy indicated that its existing policies already meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the Navy stated that its Officer of the Deck Underway Personnel Qualification Standards provide standard evaluation criteria for Officer of the Deck qualification. In our report, we noted that while the Personnel Qualification Standards provide a common list of required experiences, they do not provide a common understanding of proficiency in completing these experiences. Instead, proficiency determination is left to the discretion of the ship's Commanding Officer, which has led to wide variation in ship-driving proficiency across the fleet. Therefore, we continue to believe that the Navy should provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporate these criteria into surface fleet guidance.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a plan to analyze and use Mariner Skills Logbook information to inform decision-making. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. In official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence the Navy stated that its Surface Warfare Career Manual establishes guidance for the implementation and use of the Mariner Skills Logbook, and that the logbook will contribute information to allow proficiency trend analysis over time. However, while the Surface Warfare Career Manual identifies the offices responsible for logbook activities, it does not include a specific plan for the use of logbook data to analyze proficiency trends over time or to benefit individual officers. Our emphasis that the Navy develop a plan to analyze and use Surface Warfare Mariner Skills Logbook data to aid decision-making remains valid, and when implemented should assist the Navy in determining the relationship between SWO experience and ship-driving proficiency.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps updates the Marine Corps' civilian personnel budget formulation and execution policies to include guidance for the major subordinate commands to manage civilian personnel to FTEs. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps identifies and reconciles any differences between the Marine Corps' internal civilian personnel data and the civilian personnel data the Department of the Navy uses to support its annual budget request. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commander, Navy Installations Command, monitors the use of PACS at Navy installations. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, should ensure that the Commander, Marine Corps Installations Command, monitors the use of PACS at Marine Corps installations. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop the capability to present servicemembers' race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Navy's investigations and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3) implementing another method identified by the Navy. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity in their new case management system which was currently under development, and may implement changes to interface with Navy investigations and personnel databases. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should consider the feasibility, to include the benefits and drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete information for all nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Navy's databases, such as information on the servicemembers' race, ethnicity, gender, offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was refining its processes to standardize the documentation and reporting requirements of all nonjudicial punishment cases. They further stated that the Marine Corps currently has the ability to capture this information, but in two different systems that could be extracted and assimilated with any system as required. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for the Office of Programs and Resources oversee development and implementation of an approach to enable tracking of unit-level training funds through the budget cycle. This approach should include aligning MCPCs across the Marine Corps and ensuring consistent use of SIC codes. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps has in process a Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative that it expects to provide visibility and traceability throughout the budget cycle, to include enabling the tracking of unit-level training funds throughout the budget cycle. DOD expects to complete implementation by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps designates a single entity responsible for directing, overseeing, and coordinating efforts to achieve the objective of establishing an enterprise-wide performance management process that links resources to readiness. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway through its Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative. The initiative is expected to result in the addition of an "Assessment" phase to the PPBE process, which will be known as "PPBEA." The new phase is expected to include a system that incorporates campaign planning against traceability of funding, among other factors, and will be documented in a new Marine Corps Order to replace existing PPBE guidance. The Marine Corps expects to complete this process by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps assesses C2RAM to determine the extent to which this system, or elements of this system, should be adapted for use in an enterprise-wide performance management process linking resources to readiness. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps' Programs and Resources Department is supporting the transition of the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) from a stand-alone database to a web-enabled platform within the Marine Corps Training Information Management System (MCTIMS) program. The Marine Corps expects this platform to provide the ability to track ground unit-level training costs as they pertain to readiness goals and provide data to more effectively assess readiness investments for subsequent budget cycles. The Marine Corps expects the platform to attain initial operational capability for data input and data management by the end of fiscal year 2020, and to support analytics reporting and predictive resourcing functions by the end of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct NAVSEA to incorporate current cost and program data and an updated cost risk analysis in its planned update of the Columbia class lead submarine cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Columbia Class Program cost estimate will be updated in 2019 to support the lead ship authorization Decision Acquisition Board in 2020. As of September 2020, we have yet to receive an update on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct NAVSEA to develop a realistic and well-documented estimate of savings from use of the authorities associated with the Fund and incorporate the savings associated with the lead submarine into the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation, stating that the updated Columbia Class Program cost estimate would incorporate estimated savings from use of the authorities associated with the fund and savings associated with the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. In August 2020, Navy officials indicated that NAVSEA updated the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate to include updates to the estimate of savings from the use of the authorities associated with the Fund.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Columbia class program office to update the lead submarine cost estimate and cost risk analysis prior to requesting funds for lead submarine construction. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, stating that the lead submarine cost estimate and cost risk analysis will be updated to support the lead ship authorization Decision Acquisition Board in 2020. In August 2020, Navy officials indicated that NAVSEA updated the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. However, this estimate was completed after funding was requested for lead submarine construction. While the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation plans to conduct an assessment of this estimate in the summer of 2020, the assessment will also be too late to inform the Navy's funding request.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy categorize and report the Navy's software sustainment costs, in accordance with DOD policy on the Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process. [Recommendation 1]

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

Comments: The PAO reported that OSD has established a cross-Service team to develop a framework for accounting and reporting core requirements and capabilities specific to weapon system software that recognizes Service-unique attributes, and is applicable across all of DoD. When developed, the framework will clarify how to identify software sustainment costs, and data sources in accordance with DOD policy. When we confirm what additional actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should clarify whether and how to use the laboratory initiated research authority within the Capital Investment Program. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In December 2018, DOD agreed with our recommendation. In March 2019, DOD reported that the Navy was working on establishing a process for its laboratories to use the funds made available to them through the laboratory initiated research authority and planned to have this new policy in place by September 1, 2019 but was subsequently changed to a new date of October 1, 2019. However, the Navy was unable to finalize its policy prior to the start of the 2020 fiscal year. In February 2020, a senior USD(R&E) official stated that internal discussions between Navy acquisition officials and Navy financial management officials were ongoing. This official further noted that the Navy planned to finalize its policy by December 1, 2020, in time to influence the Navy's fiscal year 2022 budget request.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (1) collaborate with the Army Medical Command and the Air Force Medical Service to develop and implement a common set of planning standards to be used to help determine dental clinic staffing needs, and (2) incorporate these standards into the Navy's dental corps staffing model. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery evaluates the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention programs for military dentists, including the need for and effectiveness of the recruitment and retention incentives currently offered. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should require monitoring of Navy and Marine Corps processes used for recording all required real property information--to include evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to what extent these activities are being carried out--and remediating any identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials stated that the Navy required monitoring of its processes used for recording real property information. Specifically, the Navy established a requirement for a 100% inventory check to ensure existence and completeness of its real property information. As part of DOD larger effort to improve its financial management through the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) guidance, DOD officials also told us that the Navy plans to implement the existence and completeness results provided by an independent Public Accounting Firm. Further, it will continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Navy levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had been put in place. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Chief of Naval Operations' Supply, Ordnance, and Logistics Operations Division to take actions to help ensure that physical security inspections at locations with AA&E are conducted on time, as required by Navy guidance. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations to take actions to help ensure that physical security inspections at locations with AA&E are conducted on time, as required by Marine Corps guidance. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should (a) establish and implement a process to monitor whether Navy installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs and to obtain explanations from installations on the outcome of their evaluations and (b) document that process in Navy IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation, and in March 2019 the Department of the Navy directed Commander, Navy Installations Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm any further actions the Navy has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should: assess why reverse auctions that are conducted using existing contract vehicles have only one bidder at higher rates than reverse auctions conducted on the open market; determine what factors indicate that conducting reverse auctions is appropriate when using existing contract vehicles; and provide this information to contracting officials so that they can consider it when developing their acquisition strategies.(Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials told us that they had reviewed data on reverse auctions to determine a root cause of single bidders, and describing the factors that indicate that conducting a reverse auction are appropriate. However, they had not yet provided this information to contracting officials as of July 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should: document and provide information to contracting officials that describes available reverse auction providers and platforms, and any associated fee structures; and provide guidance, as appropriate, to contracting officials to ensure that they compare the options that are available to them when considering whether to use reverse auctions. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials stated that memorandum of understanding with reverse auction providers, including fee information, are distributed to contracting officials. However, as of August 2020, they had not provided us with evidence that they had distributed a memorandum related to the primary reverse auction provider currently used by the Navy.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations reevaluate fighter pilot squadron requirements, to include updating current assumptions of fighter pilot workload, and assessing the impact of future incorporation of UAS platforms into combat aviation. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Navy, many organizations and offices including the resource sponsor (Naval Air Forces) will play integral roles in determining the future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter pilot squadrons. As of August 2020, DOD officials told us that the Navy has updated most of the fighter pilot requirements for most squadrons, is taking action to update requirements for the remaining squadrons, and will provide us with documentation when the process is complete. When we obtain documentation of the updates to fighter pilot squadron requirements we will update the recommendation status as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Deputy Commandant for Aviation reevaluate fighter pilot squadron requirements. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Marine Corps, many organizations and offices in addition to the Deputy Commandant for Aviation play integral roles in the continuous evaluation and determination regarding current and future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter and attack squadrons. As of August 2020 DOD has not taken actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to address areas of civilian and military program manager training, mentoring, retention, and selection that do not align extensively with leading practices. This could include using approaches already used by the other military services or commercial companies. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and indicated the Department of the Navy plans to improve its civilian and military program manager training, mentoring, retention, and selection programs across the program management community and the acquisition workforce as a whole. Regarding training, in January 2019 the Navy sent its first cohort of participants to a DOD talent exchange program with industry, open to both civilian and military acquisition personnel, and including a focus on the program management workforce. Of the second Navy cohort that started in this program in early 2020, eight were civilians in the program management career field. Regarding mentoring, in October 2018 the Department of the Navy issued a program management career field guidebook that included career path roadmaps and descriptions of skills and competencies - such as mentoring individuals and teams - needed to advance for program management personnel across the Navy. Regarding selection, the Navy is developing a talent management system to enable talent identification, career development, and succession management across the acquisition workforce. A pilot of this system started in 2020, and includes the program management career field. The Navy expects to complete this pilot in fiscal year 2021, and to use data from the system to support the selection of key leadership positions including program managers and deputy program managers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment that establishes (1) the desired goal for the shipyards' condition and capabilities; (2) an estimate of the full costs to implement the plan, addressing all relevant requirements, external risk factors, and associated planning costs; and (3) metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. Naval Sea Systems Command produced a Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan in February 2018 to guide the overhaul and improvement of the naval shipyards. This plan includes some of the recommended elements but not others. (1) The plan includes some goals for the desired shipyard condition and capabilities including to: recover almost 70 maintenance periods over the next 20 years, modernize capital equipment to industry standards, optimize facilities, and reduce travel time and movement for personnel and materiel during the maintenance process. Navy officials stated the program office is in the process of creating digital maps of the yards to use in modeling facility layouts to identify the optimal layout. The Navy states that the optimal layout will recover 328,000 man days per year, a 65 percent reduction of travel and movement. (2) The report includes a preliminary cost estimate, but work is underway to determine the full costs to address all relevant requirements, risk factors, and planning costs. The plan identifies risks that could increase costs, but does not identify solutions to address those risks. Program officials said they will develop plans to address the risks in subsequent phases of the planning effort. The risks Navy officials identified included historical preservation, environmental regulations, and the need for extra capacity. (3) The plan did not include metrics for assessing progress toward meeting each of the goals. Navy officials stated that they intend to develop metrics to meet this element during a second phase that will be complete in fiscal year 2020.To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy should complete its optimization plan, develop a reliable cost estimate addressing all relevant requirements, risks, and planning costs, and develop metrics to help it assess progress towards meeting its goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should conduct regular management reviews that include all relevant stakeholders to oversee implementation of the plan, review metrics, assess the progress made toward the goal, and make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that the goal is attained. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to conduct regular management reviews. To address this recommendation, the Navy issued NAVSEA Notice 5450 in June 2018. This notice established a new program management office responsible for planning, developing, scheduling, budgeting, and sustaining the replacement of shipyard facilities and equipment. By creating this office, the Navy has taken a first step toward establishing a result-oriented management approach and toward implementing our recommendation to conduct regular management reviews. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, in September 2018, required this new program office to provide regular updates to an Executive Oversight Council. These updates could serve as a foundation to address this recommendation. However, as noted in GAO-20-64, the Navy has faced challenges involving all the relevant stakeholders in the plan's implementation, namely the shipyards. In the absence of clear direction, the shipyards have worked with the program office to develop several informal collaboration mechanisms. For example, the program office and the shipyards have begun several shipyard-specific working groups and hold regular telephone calls. However, until the shipyards are formally involved in the implementation and assessment of the plan, the Navy will be unable to fully meet the direction of this recommendation to involve "all relevant stakeholders."

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress on the progress the shipyards are making to meet the goal of the comprehensive plan, along with any challenges that hinder that progress, such as cost. This may include reporting on progress to reduce their facilities restoration and modernization backlogs, improve the condition and configuration of the shipyards, and recapitalize capital equipment. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress. DOD officials stated in October 2018 that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan, along with the creation of the Readiness Reform Oversight Council, address this recommendation. While the Readiness Reform Oversight Council does appear to involve some of the key stakeholders who should be receiving the regular reporting, the Navy has already made clear that it sees the shipyard optimization process as a 20-year-long effort. Given that, regular reporting on progress cannot be achieved with a single disclosure at the beginning of the effort. Both Congress and DOD decision makers need to receive regular updates on the implementation of the shipyard optimization plan, and while it is possible that the newly created Shipyard Program Management Office will be able to provide such reporting, that organization is still being developed and, as of August 2019, no progress reporting has yet begun.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of the Navy should comply with section 15(k)(8) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

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

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure the Navy thoroughly considers the relative benefits of using FPI contracts for shipbuilding versus other contract types, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a portfolio-wide assessment of the Navy's use of additional incentives on FPI contracts across its shipbuilding programs. This assessment should include a mechanism to share proven incentive strategies for achieving intended cost, schedule, and quality outcomes among contracting and program office officials.

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

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the agency concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2020, the Navy had commissioned a study of its use of additional incentives on fixed-price incentive contracts across its shipbuilding programs. The Navy plans to socialize this report with the shipbuilding program executive offices so that they can share lessons learned across the shipbuilding enterprise. The estimated completion date for this effort is the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. Following completion of that effort, in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, the Navy plans to provide recommendations regarding the use of additional incentives on fixed-price incentive contracts across its shipbuilding programs.

Recommendation: To improve the Navy's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund FBWT FIP and facilitate efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller, to prepare a level I quantitative drilldown in accordance with the FIAR Guidance.

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has actions planned, taken, or under way to prepare a quantitative drilldown. In September 2017, Navy provided a listing of certain systems (DCAS, GLs, DDRS-B, and DDRS-AFS) it considered as Level 1 assessable units. However, the listing did not include a drilldown from the financial statement amounts through DDRS-AFS, DDRS-B, and DCAS to the receipt and disbursement source systems. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that Navy is implementing a new system that will enable them to complete a quantitative drill down for its Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT). The new system is not expected to be fully implemented until March 2021. In the interim, certain FBWT reconciliations are performed at DFAS, that may provide a drilldown capability of FBWT as reported in financial statements to the applicable general ledger amounts.

Recommendation: To improve the Navy's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund FBWT FIP and facilitate efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller, to prioritize audit readiness efforts for the key FBWT systems, prepare an audit strategy that identifies for each system (1) the Navy's plan for assessing the system to gain assurance that the system can be relied on; (2) the assessment types, including prioritizing the assessments based on qualitative and quantitative factors for each system; and (3) planned start and completion dates of these assessments for each system.

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has actions planned, taken, or under way to prioritize audit readiness efforts for key Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) systems. In September 2017, Navy provided documentation for three systems, but this documentation did not address corrective actions for ineffective controls and the expected completion dates. Further, during our audit, Navy provided a list of 22 relevant systems. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that they are preparing an audit strategy for each system, and documenting control activities and computer controls for significant systems. We will continue to follow-up on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Navy's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund FBWT FIP and facilitate efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller, to prepare, in accordance with FIAR Guidance, the documentation of control activities and information technology general computer controls for significant systems; system certifications or accreditations; system, end user, and systems documentation locations; and hardware, software, and interfaces.

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it had actions planned, taken, or under way to document control activities, information technology general computer controls for significant systems, systems documentation locations, and hardware, software, and interfaces. In September 2017, Navy provided documentation for 3 systems, but the documentation did not include system certifications or accreditations; system, end user, and systems documentation locations; and hardware, software, and interfaces. Further, during our audit, Navy provided a list of 22 relevant systems. In July 2020, a Navy official told us that they are preparing an audit strategy for each system, and documenting control activities and computer controls for significant systems. We will continue to monitor Navy's progress addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Navy's implementation of the FIAR Guidance for its General Fund FBWT FIP and facilitate efforts to achieve SBR auditability, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller, to prepare an internal control assessment document for each assessable unit, summarizing control activities that are appropriately designed and in place.

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it had actions planned, taken, or under way to prepare an internal control assessment document. In September 2017, Navy provided support for actions taken to address this recommendation. However, the documentation provided did not summarize controls by assessable unit (DCAS, DDRS-B, or systems). Instead controls were listed by function (Treasury Reporting, Audit Readiness, and Departmental Reporting). In July 2020, a Navy official stated that documentation of overall Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) controls is in process and they are finalizing the Risk Control Matrix for FBWT to include controls at DFAS and at Treasury. The Rick Control Matrix is estimated to be completed by the end of August 2020. We will continue to monitor the progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help improve the management of MAIS programs, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Common Aviation Command and Control System program manager to identify weaknesses in the requirements traceability process and take corrective actions to manage the traceability of requirements to the respective lower-level requirements, and periodically evaluate work products, including the requirements management plan, and update them in accordance with the requirements guidance.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated in March 2016 that the Navy had corrected the data query issue that caused 11 requirements to be eliminated from the traceability matrix we reviewed. DOD also stated that the Navy had identified the weakness in the traceability process that led to 14 general requirements not being fully traced. However, as of June 2020, DOD had not provided us with documentation that supports that it identified the weakness in the requirements traceability process. It also had not demonstrated that the program office has updated its requirements management guidance to address the weakness it identified.

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 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 enhance federal agencies' ability to realize enterprise architecture benefits, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, the Navy, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Small Business Administration; the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Social Security Administration; and the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management should fully establish an approach for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes, including a documented method (i.e., steps to be followed) and metrics that are measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, actionable, and aligned with the agency's enterprise architecture's strategic goals and intended purpose.

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

Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided documentation demonstrating that it had established metrics and a method for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: To enhance federal agencies' ability to realize enterprise architecture benefits, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, the Navy, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Small Business Administration; the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Social Security Administration; and the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management should periodically measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits to top agency officials (i.e., executives with authority to commit resources or make changes to the program) and to OMB.

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

Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, it had not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.