Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Program Manager of the Vessel Response Plan Program establishes a process to analyze incidents where VRPs have been activated to determine whether or how the Coast Guard should improve its VRP review processes—including its approach to verifying plan information, contracts, and the quality of data used in review processes-- to assure VRP effectiveness. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Vessel Response Plan Program, in developing the charter and plan of action for the Maritime Oil Spill Response Plan Advisory Group, adopts key practices of program management. These practices include—outlining the (1) systems and methods to be used by the group to carry out its work and monitor progress on achieving desired outcomes, (2) roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved, (3) mechanisms by which potential improvements identified by the group will be incorporated by the Vessel Response Plan Program into its processes and how such progress will be measured, (4) time frames and milestones for carrying out actions under the plan, and (5) mechanisms by which the group will obtain and incorporate feedback from the maritime industry. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should conduct a standards-specific review of the Coast Guard's regulations that incorporate standards and, if necessary, update the regulations or document its decision for not updating them. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In the Department of Homeland Security's comments on a draft of our report, the department concurred with our recommendation and stated that it conducts such reviews as part of its ongoing public rulemaking process. We plan to follow-up on the status of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update the agency's process for conducting standards-specific reviews to include time frames for completing such reviews every 3 to 5 years. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In the Department of Homeland Security's comments on a draft of our report, the department concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Coast Guard is in the process of updating its policy, "Standards Program For Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection Programs," with timeframes for completing standards-specific reviews. The department estimated this would be completed in September 2021.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop and implement workforce planning for the Office of Operating and Environmental Standards that addresses the four remaining key principles for strategic workforce planning. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In the Department of Homeland Security's comments on a draft of our report, the department concurred with our recommendation and stated that it is in the process of updating its Manpower Requirements Plan to include timeframes and milestones for completing manpower requirements analyses and determinations for positions and units. The Coast Guard anticipates promulgating the updated plan in March 2022.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support assesses and addresses the causes of data errors and inconsistent entries in MISLE as identified by program offices and MISLE users, including reviewing MISLE training and data validation processes. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support uses the results of its 2019 Standardization Team assessment of command centers to develop a plan for improving the consistency and accuracy of MISLE data identified in its report. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support and the Deputy Commandant for Operations use the processes outlined in the SELC to identify needed enhancements across the MISLE system by developing an updated mission needs statement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support and the Deputy Commandant for Operations use the processes outlined in the SELC to identify and analyze alternatives, and objectively select the preferred solution for MISLE to meet approved mission needs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop formal performance goals and measures for its Spouse Employment Assistance Program. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a systematic mechanism to track implementation and measure the Coast Guard's progress in achieving organizational change goals. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would establish a policy requiring that requests to change organizational structure include a plan, and establish a mechanism to track implementation and measure progress in achieving organizational change goals. The Coast Guard stated that this will be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a mechanism to periodically seek and monitor employee satisfaction with organizational change efforts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and agreed that mechanisms to periodically seek and monitor employee satisfaction with organizational change efforts are valuable. However, they stated that their current feedback mechanisms capture this information therefore they requested we close the recommendation. The Coast Guard also stated its preference to add questions to existing surveys rather than create new survey instruments. However, we found that the Coast Guard's current surveys do not capture employee's perspectives as organizational changes are implemented. This recommendation remains open pending Coast Guard providing evidence of its actions to modify existing surveys with added questions that monitor employee satisfaction with organizational changes.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update its Manpower Requirements Manual with guidance for how to execute its manpower requirements determination process, and take steps to ensure the process is implemented. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would develop a Tactics, Techniques and Procedures document to provide guidance for executing the manpower requirements determination process. This would provide additional guidance on the overall manpower requirements determination process, including explicit directions for the collection and analysis of manpower data, and the establishment of enterprise standards for key factors and allowances used when conducting analysis. The Coast Guard stated that this will be completed by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should track and document the extent to which it has completed manpower requirements analyses and determinations for each unit type. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would initiate the process to document and track Manpower Requirements in the Coast Guard's human resources system. The Coast Guard stated that this would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update its April 2018 Manpower Requirements Plan to include time frames and milestones for completing manpower requirements analyses and determinations for all positions and units. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would update its Manpower Requirements Plan during the next required periodic report submitted to Congress, in fiscal year 2022. The Coast Guard stated that this would be completed by March 31, 2022.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should determine the resources its manpower requirements determination program needs, both staff and funding, to achieve its goal of completing manpower requirements determinations for all positions and units. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would review its 2010 manpower requirements analysis that determined the resources the Coast Guard required for its manpower requirements determination program. Its Office of Human Resources Strategy and Capability will then re-validate the inputs and update the findings for the manpower requirements analysis to reflect the currents needs of the manpower requirements determination program. The Coast Guard stated that this will be completed by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct the Assistant Commandant for Engineering and Logistics and Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy to update the Coast Guard's ATON-related initiatives to include the specific outcomes to be achieved and associated time frames. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Coast Guard plans to review and update ATON-related initiatives to include specific outcomes with associated implementation milestones by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Coast Guard should conduct a comprehensive analysis of its Deployable Specialized Forces' workforce needs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, GAO reported that the Coast Guard did not fully apply a leading practice for using data and evidence when it reorganized its Deployable Specialized Forces because it had not assessed its overall Specialized Forces workforce needs, as recommended by this practice. The Coast Guard, through DHS, concurred with GAO's recommendation that it conduct a comprehensive analysis of its Specialized Forces' workforce needs. In its May 2020 180-day letter response, DHS stated that the Coast Guard identified its Maritime Safety and Security Team as the highest priority Specialized Forces unit for workforce analysis and that it is scheduled to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2021 but noted that the overall completion of all five unit types is subject to available funding and is not estimated to be completed until September 20, 2025. As GAO reported in November 2019, officials from some of these units stated that they experienced periods of underutilization, while other units with the same or similar capabilities turned down operations for lack of available personnel. Without a comprehensive analysis in place, the Coast Guard does not have the assurance that it has the requisite number of personnel in the right units to conduct the required missions. GAO will continue to monitor Coast Guard actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Coast Guard should assess the extent to which unnecessary overlap or duplication exists among Deployable Specialized Forces' capabilities. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, GAO reported that the Coast Guard did not address potential overlap and duplication within its Specialized Forces. GAO identified some overlap among the capabilities of the different Specialized Forces units and the Coast Guard missions they support. The Coast Guard did not agree with the recommendation in its November 2019 response to GAO's draft report. At that time, DHS stated that GAO's conclusions illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the corresponding missions of Specialized Forces units. However, in technical comments provided in March 2020, the Coast Guard indicated that as of February 2020 it had not conducted the analysis necessary to fully identify potential overlap among the units. The Coast Guard stated that it is planning to begin analyzing the units this fiscal year. In its May 2020 180-day letter response, DHS stated that given current funding constrains and competing mission requirements, the Coast Guard could not consider conducting analyses not directly tied to improving mission outcomes. GAO continues to maintain that overlapping capabilities among units could indicate inefficiencies in how units are used as well as missed opportunities for use in others. Further, it is unclear why DHS and the Coast Guard simultaneously agreed to conduct the comprehensive workforce analyses of its Specialized Forces in the same 180-day letter (in response to recommendation #1 for this report), analyses that could inform an assessment of the extent to which unnecessary overlap and duplication exists among these units, while declining to address this recommendation. Without a comprehensive analysis in place, the Coast Guard does not have the assurance that it has the requisite number of personnel in the right units to conduct the required missions. GAO will continue to monitor Coast Guard actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support implements risk management processes that more fully align with the five key steps outlined in DHS's Critical Infrastructure Risk Management Framework to better guide agency shore infrastructure investment decisions. This should include (1) setting goals and objectives, (2) identifying critical infrastructure, (3) assessing and analyzing risks and costs, (4) implementing risk management activities, and (5) measuring the effectiveness of actions taken. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with the spirit of GAO's recommendation to formalize its shore infrastructure risk management processes. As noted in their formal comment, the Coast Guard was mandated by the DHS Under Secretary for Management to follow risk management guidance outlined in the DHS Resilience Framework in March 2018. The Coast Guard reported that progress towards implementing GAO's recommendation is expected to be concurrent with the development and implementation of the Component Resilience Plan in accordance with the DHS Resilience Framework. According to the Coast Guard, the DHS-mandated Component Resilience Plan assigns a mission criticality level and resilience factor to each shore facility based on a criticality assessment, inter-dependencies between mission essential assets and functions, and risk. It will then align its current resilience factor formulation to that defined through the process in the DHS Resilience Framework. Risks identified through the Framework will be managed through a strategic combination of risk acceptance, mitigation, engineering, and operational controls. The Coast Guard stated that it intends to complete these multiple efforts by the end of 2021. In a March 2020 update, the Coast Guard stated that its Office of Civil Engineering was developing the Work Plan, newly named the 2020 Civil Engineering Program Work Plan: Initiatives and Tactics and said it would include goals and objectives for identifying and addressing infrastructure resilience gaps and resource needs in alignment with the Coast Guard's Component Resilience Plan. The Coast Guard expected to publish this Civil Engineering Work Plan by July 31, 2020, after which it said it would begin implementing and measuring the effectiveness of the actions identified in the Work Plan. In June 2020, the Coast Guard reported that it now anticipates finalizing the Civil Engineering Work Plan by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a formal process to solicit input from officials directly involved in the agency's response and recovery following a disaster and to share that input with the Emergency Support Function Leadership Group. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The US Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation. In its agency response, the Coast Guard stated that it was reviewing its current policies and processes to update its After Action Report Policy or to identify and implement other policy improvements. As of July 2020, these actions were still in progress.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct program managers to establish shore infrastructure performance goals, measures, and baselines to track the effectiveness of maintenance and repair investments and provide feedback on progress made. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of April 2020, the Coast Guard continues to develop and refine its shore infrastructure measures with associated goals and estimates that it will complete these efforts in December 2020. When we confirm actions the Coast Guard has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should work with Congress to develop and implement a process to routinely align Coast Guard's shore infrastructure portfolio with mission needs, including by disposing of all unneeded assets. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of April 2020, the Coast Guard continues work to establish a formalized process to assess current and projected operational and mission support needs to identify and recommend disposal of unneeded land, buildings, and structures. The Coast Guard anticipates completing these efforts by December 2020. When we confirm actions the Coast Guard has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish guidance for planning boards to document inputs, deliberations, and project prioritization decisions for infrastructure maintenance projects. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of April 2020, the Coast Guard is reviewing its existing guidance for planning boards and expects to complete these efforts in December 2020. When we confirm actions the Coast Guard has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should employ models for its asset lines for predicting the outcome of investments, analyzing trade-offs, and optimizing decisions among competing investments. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In 2019, GAO reported that the Coast Guard generally has not employed models for predicting the outcome of maintenance investments and optimizing among competing investments, as called for in leading practices. GAO found that, in one instance, the Coast Guard used a model to optimize maintenance for its aviation pavement and, according to Coast Guard officials, found that it could save nearly $14 million by accelerating investment in this area (e.g., paving runways) sooner rather than deferring such maintenance. Coast Guard officials told GAO that such modeling could be applied within and across all of its shore infrastructure asset types, but the Coast Guard did not implement the results of this model and does not require their use. Employing models to predict the future condition and performance of facilities could potentially identify and achieve cost savings, according to leading practices. The Coast Guard concurred with GAO's recommendation that it employ models for its asset lines for predicting the outcome of investments, analyzing trade-offs, and optimizing decisions among competing investments. As of January 2020, the Coast Guard has not employed models to evaluate its asset lines. Instead, the Coast Guard reported that it is evaluating alternative models for its asset lines, and estimated that the Coast Guard will complete this analysis by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should include supporting details about competing project alternatives and report trade-offs in Congressional budget requests and related reports. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, GAO reported that Coast Guard budget requests did not provide Congress with accurate information about its funding needs. Specifically, we found that the Coast Guard did not meet this leading practice as its budget requests (1) have not clearly identified funding allotted for routine shore infrastructure maintenance needs, and (2) have not generally addressed deferred maintenance and repair deficiencies, resulting in increases to its backlogs. Specifically, GAO found that budget requests related to shore infrastructure for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 did not provide Congress with required and complete information, as previously noted, necessary to inform decision-makers of the risks posed by untimely investments in maintenance and repair backlogs. GAO also reported that the Coast Guard annual Unfunded Priorities List does not clearly articulate prioritization decisions, including information about trade-offs among competing project alternatives, as well as the impacts on missions conducted from shore facilities in disrepair that had not been prioritized in previous years, or is it aligned with its requirements-based budget targets for shore infrastructure. DHS concurred with GAO's recommendation that the Coast Guard include supporting details about competing project alternatives and report trade-offs in Congressional budget requests and related reports. In its August 2019 180-day letter response, DHS stated that the Coast Guard Office of Budget and Programs will include additional information in the future Unfunded Priorities Lists. However, when the Coast Guard released its 2020 Unfunded Priorities List to Congress it did not contain additional details on competing priorities. GAO will continue to monitor Coast Guard budget requests and related reports, including the Unfunded Priorities Lists, for additional supporting details about competing project alternatives and trade-offs

Recommendation: The Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard should direct the chair of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research, in coordination with member agencies, to systematically review its membership to determine whether any additional agencies should be involved in coordinating oil spill research and that the most appropriate offices within member agencies are represented. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2020, the U.S. Coast Guard informed GAO that the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research (ICCOPR) review of non-member agencies was complete and that the formal process to invite the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for membership has been initiated. To formalize membership, a majority of current ICCOPR members must approve USGS by vote, which is expected. This will be followed by a letter of invitation from the Coast Guard Commandant to USGS making the membership official.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard should direct the chair of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research, in coordination with member agencies, to coordinate with the relevant Natural Resource Damage Assessment trustee councils to help ensure that the interagency committee's research informs and supports the councils' damage assessment and restoration efforts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2020, the Coast Guard informed GAO that the ICCOPR FY 2022-2027 Research and Technology Plan will include a process to engage Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) trustees. Once updated and finalized, ICCOPR will execute this plan to coordinate with the NRDA trustee councils.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Navy, should direct the polar icebreaker program and NAVSEA 05C to update the HPIB cost estimate in accordance with best practices for cost estimation, including (1) developing risk bounds for all phases of the program lifecycle, and on the basis of these risk bounds, conduct risk and uncertainty analysis, as well as sensitivity analysis, on all phases of the program lifecycle, and (2) reconciling the results with an updated independent cost estimate based on the same technical baseline before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are updating the polar icebreaker program's life cycle cost estimate to reflect information provided by the shipbuilder and anticipate completing the update in the fall 2020. We will review the updated life cycle cost estimate at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct the polar icebreaker program office to develop a program schedule in accordance with best practices for project schedules, including determining realistic durations of all shipbuilding activities and identifying and including a reasonable amount of margin in the schedule, to set realistic schedule goals for all three ships before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they updated the polar icebreaker program's schedule for the lead ship and are in the process of developing schedules for the follow-on ships. We will review the updated schedules once the Coast Guard provides them and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should work with Congress to include in the Coast Guard's annual 5-year CIP a discussion of the acquisition programs it prioritized that describes how trade-off decisions made could affect other acquisition programs, such as by delaying recapitalization efforts or needing to conduct Service Life Extension Projects for legacy assets. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard agreed with this recommendation and in August 2019 officials reported that the Coast Guard is working with DHS to include additional information that addresses how trade-off decisions made could affect other major acquisition programs in future CIP reports. It anticipates including this information in the FY 2021-2025 CIP, which it expects to release in late summer 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should require the Executive Oversight Council, in its role to facilitate a balanced and affordable acquisition portfolio, to annually review the acquisition portfolio collectively, specifically for long-term affordability. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Coast Guard disagreed with this recommendation stating that other bodies within the Coast Guard--such as the Investment Board, Deputies Council, and Investment Review Board--are responsible for making decisions regarding out-year funding, while the Executive Oversight Council works outside of the annual budget process. DHS also stated that, to meet the spirit of our recommendation, the Coast Guard will update the Executive Oversight Council's charter to require a review of the collective acquisition portfolio, specifically evaluating long-term planning. We believe that updating the Executive Oversight Council's charter to include long-term-planning is a positive step. However, we continue to believe that in addition to long-term planning, the Executive Oversight Council should include the major acquisition portfolio's budget realities faced by the Coast Guard in its reviews, or long-term affordability. If the planning accounts for long-term funding considerations to achieve the Coast Guard's acquisition goals and objectives, we believe the intent of our recommendation would be met. The Coast Guard expects to complete the update of the EOC charter by by late summer 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that all eligible Coast Guard servicemembers are provided the opportunity to complete the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the Commandant of the Coast Guard should issue an updated Commandant Instruction that establishes policies and procedures to improve the reliability and completeness of TAP data by including when and by whom data should be recorded and updated. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation and reported that a Commandant Instruction had been drafted, which will include a policy on the duties and requirements for recording TAP data. The Commandant Instruction is anticipated to be issued by October 31, 2018. We will consider this recommendation closed when the Commandant Instruction is officially issued.

Recommendation: To ensure that all eligible Coast Guard servicemembers are provided the opportunity to complete the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a formal performance goal with a measurable target for participation rates in VOW Act-mandated portions of TAP. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with our recommendation and reported that the Coast Guard, Department of Defense (DOD), and other partners collaborated to identify measurable and specific performance goals that are compliant with VOW requirements. In addition, the these goals will be measured using the DOD's TAP-IT Enterprise tracking system once it becomes fully functional to the Coast Guard by October 31, 2018. We will close this recommendation when DHS provides documentation of its measures and goals.

Recommendation: To ensure that all eligible Coast Guard servicemembers are provided the opportunity to complete the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the Commandant of the Coast Guard should issue an updated Commandant Instruction that defines the roles and responsibilities of the personnel who administer the program and ensure servicemembers' participation. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation and reported that a Commandant Instruction has been drafted, which will identify the duties of personnel who administer TAP. The Commandant Instruction is anticipated to be issued by October 31, 2018. We will consider this recommendation closed when the Commandant Instruction is officially issued.

Recommendation: To ensure that all eligible Coast Guard servicemembers are provided the opportunity to complete the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the Commandant of the Coast Guard should, once reliable data are available by installation or unit, enable unit commanders and the higher-level commanders to whom they report to access TAP performance information specifically for the units they oversee so that they can monitor compliance with all TAP requirements. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation and reported the Coast Guard expects to fully transition to DOD's TAP-IT Enterprise System by October 31, 2018, which is expected to facilitate tracking of servicemember attendance within all TAP components. The agency also stated that following the transition and release of the new Commandant Instruction, Commanding Officers will be able to monitor their compliance with TAP performance and requirements. Both these efforts are expected to be completed by October 31, 2018. We will consider this recommendation closed when the Commandant Instruction has been issued and documentation is provided of the ability to track performance information by unit.

Recommendation: Once reliable data are available, the Coast Guard, or another agency identified by the working group, should assess the rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to determine whether certain factors--including vessel length and region of operation, among other things--affect these rates. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not concur with our recommendation that the Coast Guard assess the rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to determine whether certain factors-such as vessel length and region of operation-affect these rates. DHS officials stated that the Coast Guard has limited resources and capabilities to conduct such assessments and noted that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studies marine incidents to identify causal factors in fishing vessel casualties, which could more effectively determine casualty rates. The Coast Guard uses this information to update and develop commercial fishing vessel safety standards and policy, as appropriate. GAO agrees that NIOSH plays an important role in identifying commercial fishing fatalities and regional risk factors, but such assessments typically focus on fatalities in specific fisheries, and generally did not consider such factors as vessel length or whether the vessel has been classed. As of July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated the Coast Guard continues to work with other Federal partners on data collection strategies through the established work group to determine the best reliable data in order to establish credible rates of casualties, injuries, and fatalities in the commercial fishing vessel industry. This recommendation will remain open pending a decision by the working group on the appropriate agency to conduct these assessments.

Recommendation: The Coast Guard should issue regulations or guidance to clarify and implement the alternative-to-class approach. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation that the Coast Guard issue regulations or guidance to clarify and implement the alternative-to-class approach. As of November 2018, the Coast Guard made a presentation to the commercial fishing industry clarifying the alternative-to-class approach as it relates to commercial fishing vessels including discussion topics such as understanding the language of 46 USC 4503 and State Licensed Naval Architect and Marine Engineers' scope of responsibilities when incorporating standards equivalent to those prescribed by a classification society. As of June 2020, Coast Guard officials stated they have formalized work instruction guidance regarding implementation of the alternative-to-class approach. This guidance is expected to be released by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should either develop new performance goals to address mission activity gaps, or explain in the Coast Guard's Annual Performance Report (APR) why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would add new measures in future Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and explain what is measured and what is not, as appropriate. In May 2020, the Coast Guard provided GAO with its updated fiscal year 2019 APR. After reviewing the fiscal year 2019 APR, we found that the Coast Guard made revisions to the goals for the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) and Marine Environmental Protection-prevention activities (MEP) missions and added a goal for the Search and Rescue mission. However, the APR did not include additional goals or an explanation why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not for the other performance goals we previously identified as not fully addressing all related mission activities. In its July 2020 update to this recommendation, the Coast Guard reported that the metrics published in the APR are measures of Coast Guard performance and not performance goals. The Coast Guard also noted that it continually evaluates the utility of its performance measures, and makes changes to individual measures, as well as its suite of measures, when doing so provides meaningful improvement. In its July 2020 update, the Coast Guard added that targets established for performance measures are intended to be realistic expectations of future performance and targets are continually evaluated and changed when current performance modify expectations. However, we continue to believe that in the absence of documentation explaining how existing performance goals address each mission, the extent to which the Coast Guard's performance goals encompass all of its mission activities is unclear. Either developing new goals to address mission activity gaps, or describing in the APR how existing goals sufficiently assess the performance of each mission could provide more meaningful information on progress in achieving Coast Guard's missions to executive branch decision makers, Congress, and the public. In order to fully implement the recommendation as intended, in instances in which performance goals do not fully address all of the respective mission activities, the Coast Guard's APR should include an explanation of the Coast Guard's rationale for why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. We will continue to follow-up on the Coast Guard's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish and follow a sound air station optimization process similar to its process for analyzing boat stations to allow it to comprehensively analyze its need for air stations and air facilities and determine what changes may be needed. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that a 2014 Coast Guard contracted analysis of selected air stations and air facilities identified overlap and unnecessary duplication but it did not comprehensively review all air stations and air facilities. The analysis determined that certain air facilities (Newport, Oregon, and Charleston, South Carolina) provided overlapping search and rescue coverage, some of which was unnecessarily duplicative. Coast Guard officials used the results of this analysis to support proposed closures of the air facilities in the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget. However, shortly before their planned closure date, the Coast Guard encountered strong opposition to the closures at the local, state, and Congressional levels, and did not close them. The Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation that it establish and follow a sound air station optimization process and comprehensive analysis to determine what changes may be needed. In its December 2017 60-Day letter response, DHS said the Coast Guard will utilize the FY 2020 Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution cycle to identify efficiencies in air station optimization and that the cycle is proceeding as planned. However, the response did not say whether the Coast Guard will act on findings and permanently close stations identified as overlapping, unnecessarily duplicative, and unnecessary, if any are identified. As of March 2020, the agency has identified the need for further analysis and estimates completion of these analyses in March 2021.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should establish a plan with target dates and milestones for closing boat stations that it has determined, through its 9-step process and subsequent analysis, provide overlapping search and rescue coverage and are unnecessarily duplicative. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that the Coast Guard has a sound process for analyzing its boat stations that includes clear and specific steps for analyzing the need for stations using terms that can be readily defined and measured. A 2013 analysis of Coast Guard stations identified unnecessary duplication and recommended certain stations that could be permanently closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour search and rescue response standard and other mission requirements; however, as of August 2017 the Coast Guard had not closed any stations, nor developed a plan with time frames for closing stations even though leaders said the results of the analysis remain valid. Closing unneeded stations has historically been difficult due to public concern about the effect of closures on local communities and other factors. In some cases over the years, Congress has intervened and enacted federal laws that have affected Coast Guard's proposed closures. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation that it establish a plan with target dates and milestones for closing stations. In its December 2017 60-Day letter response, DHS said the Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces continues to evaluate the optimal number, location, and configuration of stations to better meet mission requirements, and is finalizing analysis of operational needs in Coast Guard Districts One (D1) and Five (D5). As of December 2019, the agency had completed additional analyses and reported that it was considering changes in operations for several stations. The Coast Guard estimated that it will continue to consider changes until spring 2020. However, the Coast Guard did not establish target dates or milestones for closing stations. By developing a plan with target dates and milestones for closing stations that are unnecessarily duplicative, the Coast Guard would be better positioned to improve operations and achieve cost savings over time.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should take action to close the stations identified according to its plan and target dates. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In 2017, GAO reported that the Coast Guard has not taken action to implement the results of its analyses which recommended station closures even though it has completed requirements to pursue some station closures. For example, a 2013 analysis of Coast Guard stations identified unnecessary duplication and recommended certain stations that could be permanently closed without negatively affecting the Coast Guard's ability to meet its 2-hour search and rescue response standard and other mission requirements. However, as of August 2017 the Coast Guard had not closed any stations, nor developed a plan with time frames for closing stations even though Coast Guard leaders said the results of the analysis remain valid. GAO reported that the Coast Guard had not closed stations because past efforts to close stations (eight attempts since 1973) were met with resistance from affected communities and instances where the Congress intervened. Nevertheless, the Coast Guard agreed with GAO's recommendation that it establish a plan with target dates and milestones for closing stations. In its December 2017 60-Day letter response, DHS said that once analyses of the need for and locations of boat stations are completed for Coast Guard Districts One and Five, the Coast Guard will commence Congressional engagement and public outreach regarding any operational changes to D1 and D5 stations, if any, including processing feedback from stakeholders before making final decisions on recommended changes. As of December 2019, the Coast Guard reported that it was considering changes in operational status for several stations. The Coast Guard estimated that it will continue to consider changes until spring 2020, which, if implemented, will be more than 7 years after it proposed station closures. By closing unnecessarily duplicative stations, the Coast Guard could be better positioned to improve its operations and achieve cost savings over time.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update Commandant Instruction M6000.1F, Coast Guard Medical Manual, to classify gambling disorder as an addiction and not as an impulse control issue.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The U.S. Coast Guard/DHS concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, the Coast Guard stated that updates to this manual are ongoing. According to Coast Guard officials, including gambling disorder in this manual is one of many significant updates the program is adjudicating for this manual and it's a lengthy clearance process. No timeline was provided for expected issuance.

Recommendation: To better position the Coast Guard to effectively plan its Arctic operations, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not developed measures to systematically assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. According to Coast Guard officials, they expect the implementation plan to include actionable items that can be measured and the framework tool to include outcome and success measures. In July 2020, officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is finalized and implemented and that throughout fiscal year 2021 they will test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to finalize the development of its measures to gauge how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, which we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: To better position the Coast Guard to effectively plan its Arctic operations, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not systematically assessed how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility, so that it will better understand the status of these gaps and be better positioned to effectively plan its Arctic operations. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. Officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is implemented and utilized for assessment of its progress. In July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they plan to test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate, throughout fiscal year 2021. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, and provide documentation that identifies the progress it has made in helping to mitigate Arctic capability gaps and its plans to systematically assess progress, which we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: To improve transparency in allocating its limited resources, and to help ensure that its resource allocation decisions are the most effective ones for fulfilling its missions given existing risks, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should document how the risk assessments conducted were used to inform and support its annual asset allocation decisions.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated that both of these documents are currently under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 and is awaiting a reply. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP)/Global Force Management (GFM) Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. This change would further require an update of the SOPP/GFM Instruction. The COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. New Estimated Completion Date (ECD): June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To ensure that high priority mission activities are fully supported with the appropriate number of staff possessing the requisite mix of skills and abilities, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop a systematic process that prioritizes manpower requirements analyses for units that are the most critical for achieving mission needs.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: On December 14, 2016, the Coast Guard noted that it submitted two FY 2019 Resource Proposals to staff and equip the Manpower Requirements Determination Division to conduct the analysis as described in the recommendation. In April, 2016, the Coast Guard liaison stated that, resources permitting, the Coast Guard is to address the following steps: (1) Validate the "unit-type" list so that it encompasses the vast majority of active duty and civilian billets in a logical framework that can be readily analyzed, review/update the list as changes (e.g., asset mix, organizations) occur. (2) Develop the requirements for the envisioned Manpower Analysis & Simulation Tool (MAST). (3) Prioritize unit list according to strategic alignment and risk assessment (4) Conduct the manpower requirements analyses (MRA) in accordance with established priorities. As of August 2020, the Coast Guard reported it had not implemented the actions. Specifically, the Coast Guard reported that in response to GAO's February 2020 modernization report (GAO-20-223, rec#2), it was developing new guidance for executing the manpower requirement determination process. Officials told us that the new guidance would include a systematic process for prioritizing manpower analysis. In this way, the actions for implementing the GAO-20-223 recommendation may also serve to meet the intent of the recommendation for GAO-16-379. Officials told us the Coast Guard estimated implementing the actions by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the strategic allocation of assets, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should incorporate field unit input, such as information on assets' actual performance from Operational Performance Assessment Reports and Planning Assessments, to inform more realistic asset allocation decisions--in addition to asset performance capacities currently used--in the annual Strategic Planning Directions to more effectively communicate strategic intent to field units.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated these documents are under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 asking for an update. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the SOPP/GFM Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. The liaison stated that the COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. The new estimated completion date for this recommendation is June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To promote greater visibility over the extent of hazing in the Coast Guard to better inform actions to address hazing, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In 2017 the Coast Guard surveyed servicemembers on hazing and stated that it planned to, but had not yet conducted an evaluation of prevalence. However, in July 2018, the Coast Guard stated that no further analysis was planned for the 2017 survey data. The Coast Guard stated that a second survey was planned for 2019, but did not identify any plans to evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard. As of October 2020, the Coast Guard has not provided a requested update on the status of the implementation of this recommendation or indicated any ongoing plans to implement it.

Recommendation: To help the Coast Guard improve the long-term outlook of its portfolio, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop a 20-year fleet modernization plan that identifies all acquisitions needed to maintain the current level of service and the fiscal resources necessary to build the identified assets. The plan should also consider trade-offs if the fiscal resources needed to execute the plan are not consistent with annual budgets.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation. Since the issuance of GAO's report, in February 2016, Congress directed the Coast Guard to develop a long-term plan to cover fiscal year 2017 and 20 years thereafter and that it should be updated every two years. In November 2017, officials told GAO that the Coast Guard was developing a 20-year long-term plan that specifically focused on the highest priority recapitalization and sustainment efforts for its assets and will focus on meeting the intent of the 2016 congressional mandate. However, as of July 2020, the Coast Guard has not completed this plan. At that time, officials said that the Coast Guard continues to refine the process to define the long term acquisition and capital sustainment needs of the Service and align them with published and anticipated fiscal top line budgets. The Coast Guard is working with internal and external stakeholders to define useful parameters in order to complete work to close this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor the Coast Guard's actions in completing its long-term plan given that GAO's recent work has found that the Coast Guard continues to pursue an unaffordable acquisition portfolio that is not likely to fully address all known and anticipated capability gaps.