Recommendation: The Director of OMB should comply with its statutory requirement to issue implementation guidance to agencies to develop and maintain comprehensive data inventories. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should comply with the statutory requirement to electronically publish a report on agencies' performance and compliance with the OPEN Government Data Act. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Administrator of GSA, should establish policy to ensure the routine identification and correction of errors in electronically published performance information. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, should issue the addendum to the 2020 Compliance Supplement as soon as possible to provide the necessary audit guidance. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should take steps to ensure that federal agencies implement its guidance on agency adherence to E.O. 13132 requirements, particularly related to designating a federalism official. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should identify a federal entity or entities to be responsible for addressing the National Academies' recommendations for updating the methodologies used to estimate the federal social cost of carbon, including monitoring scientific research and ensuring that updates to the federal estimates consider such research as appropriate. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB did not provide comments on this recommendation. As of July 2020, we are following up with the agency and will update the status of the recommendation when we receive requested information from OMB.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that CMS, FBI, IRS, and SSA are collaborating on their cybersecurity requirements pertaining to state agencies to the greatest extent possible and direct further coordination where needed. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should take steps to ensure that CMS, FBI, IRS, and SSA coordinate, where feasible, on assessments of state agencies' cybersecurity, which may include steps such as leveraging other agencies' security assessments or conducting assessments jointly. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should (1) require that agencies explicitly document annual data center closure goals in their DCOI strategic plans and (2) track those goals on the IT Dashboard. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should require agencies to report in their quarterly inventory submissions those facilities previously reported as data centers, even if those facilities are not subject to the closure and optimization requirements of DCOI. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should document OMB's decisions on whether to approve individual data centers when designated by agencies as either a mission critical facility or as a facility not subject to DCOI. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should take action to address the key performance measurement characteristics missing from the DCOI optimization metrics, as identified in this report. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management of Budget should update the Guidelines to include GAO's leading practices of developing monitoring plans that are based on risks, ensuring that monitoring staff have appropriate qualifications, establishing procedures to close-out programs, developing staff skills regarding evaluations, and establishing mechanisms for following up on evaluation recommendations. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB disagreed with the recommendation and suggested it would be more effective to remind agencies that, in addition to the guidelines, they should follow all other relevant OMB guidance affecting monitoring and evaluation. OMB asserted that this guidance contains provisions relevant to our leading practices not included in the Foreign Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines. However, we believe it is important for OMB to incorporate this other guidance into the Foreign Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, if only by reference, to emphasize the importance of these practices in the context of monitoring and evaluation of foreign assistance. As of April 28, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not implemented this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor this issue.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should expand its coordination of CyberStat review meetings for those agencies with a demonstrated need for assistance in implementing information security. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2020, OMB officials stated that they have incorporated agency feedback for enhancing the CyberStat program into an updated concept of operations document that is currently in draft. To consider this recommendation fully implemented, OMB needs to provide us with an updated concept of operations document for the CyberStat program, and demonstrate the expansion of CyberStat review meetings to agencies that require additional assistance due to persistent information security deficiencies. As of September 2020, OMB has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should collaborate with CIGIE to ensure that the inspector general reporting metrics include the FISMA-required information security program element for system security plans. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, we were still waiting to receive OMB's 180-day letter detailing the actions it plans to take to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, establish guidance or other means to facilitate the sharing of successful approaches for agencies to address challenges in the areas of (1) managing competing priorities between cybersecurity and operations, such as when operational needs appear to conflict with cybersecurity requirements; (2) implementing consistent cybersecurity risk management policies and procedures across an agency; (3) incorporating cyber risks into enterprise risk management, and (4) establishing agencies' cybersecurity risk management strategies. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget did not say whether or not it concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, we had not received information pertaining to this recommendation. Once OMB has provided information, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, after consulting with key stakeholders (e.g., the Chief Financial Officers Council), should develop a strategy for ensuring that agencies communicate sufficient and timely internal control plans for effective oversight of disaster relief funds. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) disagreed with our recommendation. In the agency's comment section of the GAO report, OMB staff stated that OMB did not believe the sufficiency or timeliness of control plans present material issues that warranted OMB action. While OMB acknowledged that almost all agency control plans were submitted after the statutory deadline, OMB staff stated that this delay in itself neither indicated the absence of controls nor the effectiveness of those controls. Further, OMB staff stated that it is agency management and not OMB that has responsibility for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. While agencies were responsible for submitting their internal control plans, federal law placed the responsibility of establishing the criteria for the internal control plans with OMB. Therefore, we believe that our recommendation is warranted. In January 2020, OMB informed us that there are no additional updates at this time regarding status, actions, or timelines to develop a strategy. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that information is collected regarding how centralized reporting of procurement requirements might reduce recipient reporting burden—including input from stakeholders such as contractors through an iterative and ongoing process—to inform OMB's planned expansion of the Central Reporting Portal.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In an October 2019 written response to the recommendation contained in GAO-19-299, OMB acknowledged the importance of collecting stakeholder input and described some steps that it has taken to do so in the past. The letter also stated OMB's intention to engage key stakeholders moving forward but was not specific regarding steps it planned to take related to the potential expansion of the Central Reporting Portal. GAO will continue to monitor this issue including what specific actions, if any, OMB takes in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should require agencies to explicitly report, at least on a quarterly basis, the savings and cost avoidance associated with cloud computing investments. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should clarify and document OMB's procedure for changing official data definition standards for DATA Act reporting, for example, by explicitly describing how change procedures developed for other government-wide initiatives apply to DATA Act definition standards in a public source of guidance or information. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has taken steps to restructure the federal data ecosystem, including issuing government-wide guidance covering all federal data and creating a Business Standards Council. However, given the complexity of recent changes, OMB needs to explicitly and publicly describe how those changes-developed in the context of other government-wide initiatives-apply to DATA Act data element definitions.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that the June 2018 policy changes regarding DATA Act data definition standards are clearly identified and explained in the official repository or another authoritative public source of DATA Act standards and guidance, such as by including a revision history along with the current version of the definitions. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OMB staff cited its Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards website and specifically notations on that site regarding the dates of revisions made to those standards as being responsive to this recommendation. However, the specific notations cited by OMB only show changes made back in 2015 and do not reflect nor explain some of the more recent revisions that led to GAO making this recommendation.

Recommendation: OMB's Shared Services Policy Officer should work with GSA to finalize a plan for monitoring the implementation of NewPay. The plan should include:
• implementation goals, a timeline, and milestones for agencies to transition from one provider to another;
• transparent reporting mechanisms on key milestones; and
• a process for capturing and communicating lessons learned.
(Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had not addressed this recommendation. According to OMB staff, they are still deliberating goals and milestones for NewPay. In addition, OMB is working on a knowledge library to capture lessons learned for shared services initiatives. However, OMB staff did not provide a timeline for when they will complete these efforts. Without a detailed monitoring plan that includes goals, transparent reporting mechanisms on key milestones, and a process for capturing and communicating lessons learned, it will be more difficult for OMB and GSA to provide oversight of the transition and its effects on providers and customers, including whether there are interruptions to delivery of services. Additionally, this information could help OMB and GSA avoid gaps in service or costly delays as agencies transition to the new model for obtaining payroll and work management services.

Recommendation: OMB's Shared Services Policy Officer should work with GSA to document key roles and responsibilities, including which agency will be the NewPay Service Management Offices (SMO), who will be assigned to the NewPay Task Order Review Board, how the SMO, the Review Board, and other key stakeholders will work together, and which agency will be responsible for interpreting payroll rules and regulations. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had taken some steps to address this recommendation. OMB designated GSA as the Quality Service Management Office (QSMO) for NewPay. As QSMO, GSA will be responsible for managing the payroll marketplace. However, OMB has not documented how GSA and other key stakeholders will work together. For example, OMB has not documented which agency will review and approve task orders. Until OMB and GSA clearly identify, communicate, and document key roles and responsibilities, they run the risk of not achieving their objectives. They also risk repeating past problems associated with the delivery of shared services, such as the inconsistent implementation and interpretation of standards and migrations that encounter costly delays should agencies not follow available guidance.

Recommendation: OMB's Shared Services Policy Officer should work with GSA to update provider information on services offered, pricing, and performance and share that information with prospective customers. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had not addressed this recommendation. Without up-to-date information on providers -- such as the services OMB and GSA plan to offer, their level of performance, and their costs -- it will be time- consuming and difficult for potential customers to compare providers. This lack of information could slow the rate of shared services adoption.

Recommendation: OMB's Shared Services Policy Officer should work with GSA to implement a process for collecting and tracking cost-savings data that would allow them to assess progress toward the shared services cost-savings goal of an estimated $2 billion over 10 years. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB staff did not agree or disagree with GAO's March 2019 recommendation. As of January 2020, OMB had not addressed this recommendation. According to OMB officials, OMB will collect cost-savings data via the integrated data collection process, which requires agencies to publicly post their cost savings and avoidance data. However, OMB has not demonstrated how it plans to use data from the IT Integrated Data Collection Instrument to track cost savings specifically related to shared services overall and for individual projects. Until OMB and GSA finalize a plan for collecting the needed data and evidence to effectively measure cost-savings goals, it will be difficult to demonstrate progress -- a recurring challenge associated with previous shared services efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should make available more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties that it maintains in its OMB MAX database. For example, OMB could report data on fee collections by agency in Analytical Perspectives. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not provide comments on our draft report and therefore neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, OMB had not provided evidence of any actions taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should instruct agencies to regularly review the application of the user fee designation in the OMB MAX data and update the designation, as needed, to meet the criteria in OMB Circular No. A-11. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB did not provide comments on our draft report and therefore neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, OMB had not provided evidence of any actions taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should determine a government-wide baseline level of progress in meeting physical access control system requirements, including implementation of GSA-approved systems, and should monitor progress in meeting these requirements. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2019, GAO contacted OMB to determine if any progress has been made implementing this recommendation. GAO is awaiting OMB's response.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should submit the intrusion assessment plan to the appropriate congressional committees. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with OMB.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should report on implementation of the defense-in-depth strategy described in the intrusion assessment plan, including all elements described in the plan. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with OMB.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should update the analysis of agencies' intrusion detection and prevention capabilities to include the degree to which agencies are using NCPS. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with OMB.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should direct the Federal CIO to update her report to Congress to include required information, such as detecting advanced persistent threats, a comparison of the costs and benefits of the capabilities versus commercial technologies and tools, and the capability of agencies to protect sensitive cyber threat indicators and defense measures. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with OMB.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should direct the Federal CIO to work with DHS to follow-up with agencies to identify obstacles and impediments affecting their abilities to implement intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not provided sufficient evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with OMB.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: (1) To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and (2) To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within OMB concurred with our recommendation, noting that it plans to coordinate with federal agencies on the extent to which they have developed training and guidance. Based on this information, OFPP will work with agencies to determine the most appropriate course of action to address gaps, if any. As of August 2020, OFPP stated that it had not taken any additional actions to implement the recommendation because it is currently focused on implementing Executive Order 13881 "Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products and Materials".

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should take steps to update OMB guidance to specify other types of quality information that agencies with programs noncompliant for 3 or more consecutive years should include in their notifications to Congress, such as significant matters related to risks, issues, root causes, measurable milestones, designated senior officials, accountability mechanisms, and corrective actions or strategies planned or taken by agencies to achieve compliance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) neither agreed or disagreed with the recommendation but stated that it had no comments. In January 2020, OMB informed us that it had no status updates to provide at this time. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should enhance the guidelines for agencies to establish the controls required by FRDAA, by clarifying the difference between FRDAA and ERM requirements, and through collaboration with agencies to determine what additional information agencies need to implement the controls. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) was enacted to improve efforts to identify and reduce government-wide improper payments, including payments that are the result of fraud. PIIA repealed and replaced FRDAA. However, OMB and the other agencies subject to PIIA essentially must satisfy the same requirements established under FRDAA, including adhering to OMB's related guidelines. OMB has not updated its published guidelines for FRDAA as we recommended. If OMB takes additional actions to supplement guidelines under PIIA, we will review the guidelines to determine whether it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should enhance FRDAA reporting guidelines by directing agencies to report complete and detailed information on each of the reporting elements specified by FRDAA, which should include information related to financial and nonfinancial fraud. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) was enacted to improve efforts to identify and reduce government-wide improper payments, including payments that are the result of fraud. PIIA repealed and replaced FRDAA, but maintained similar reporting requirements for federal agencies regarding fraud risks and also extended the time line for reporting by a year. OMB did not update its previous reporting guidance for FRDAA as we recommended. If OMB takes additional actions to supplement reporting guidelines under PIIA, we will review the guidelines to determine whether it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should take steps to improve existing information on federal asset management to reflect leading practices such as those described in ISO 55000 and the key characteristics we identified and make it readily available to federal agencies. These steps could include updating asset management guidance and developing a clearinghouse of information on asset management practices and successful agency experiences. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, OMB has developed guidance to help federal agencies implement the capital planning requirements described in OMB's November 6, 2019 Memorandum 20-3, "Implementation of Agency-wide Real Property Capital Planning." According to OMB officials, this guidance was distributed to agencies in July 2020. Agency plans were due to OMB by August 15,2020. This recommendation remains open pending further information from OMB on the status and contents of these plans.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, working with CFOC, should (1) collect data metrics regularly on the Career Roadmap Builder online tool and Grants Training 101 to determine how widely the resources are being used, and (2) obtain periodic feedback from federal agencies on the usefulness of these tools and any needed improvements. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB staff provided us with oral comments stating that the agency partially concurred with our recommendations. For our second recommendation, OMB agreed that user feedback data regarding the Career Roadmap Builder and Grants Training 101 is useful. However, OMB stated that while it will continue to collect data on the number of users, it believes that federal agencies should be responsible for collecting specific, detailed user data if they are using those resources. We continue to believe that OMB and CFOC would benefit from collecting specific, detailed user data on these tools, which they devoted time and multiple resources to developing. Collecting detailed data metrics that go beyond the number of users can help OMB and CFOC to better evaluate the effectiveness of these grants training tools. Additionally, OMB stated the agency is committed to working with CFOC to review the Grants Training 101 module to determine how useful it is and if any improvements or adjustments are needed. In May 2019, OMB staff said that no action had been taken to date in response to this recommendation. In January 2020, OMB responded in writing to this recommendation stating that it was continuing to collect data on usage for both training tools on the CFO.gov site. OMB specified, however, that the usage data was for the number of visitors on the two sites and on users by agency. OMB went on to say that each agency is responsible for the professional development of its own workforce, and that Federal agencies can, at their discretion, collect user data if the Roadmap and Grant Training 101 are part of their official training program. In addition, OMB stated it had made the Grants Training 101 available publicly for federal and non-federal personnel on CFO.Gov, and that collecting specific user data is not considered by them to be beneficial to demonstrate the usefulness of the materials. Based on this response, we will continue to inquire as to the availability and use of metrics and effectiveness measures for the Career Roadmap and the Grants Training 101 modules.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should direct the leaders of the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP Goal to ensure future updates to the action plan, and the resulting federal data strategy, provide additional details on improving the use of data, including performance information, more extensively within federal agencies. The action plan should identify performance goals; contributing agencies, organizations, programs, and other activities; those responsible for leading implementation within these contributors; planned actions; time frames; and means to assess progress. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and contributors to the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset cross-agency priority (CAP) goal, have taken some actions to address this recommendation. For example, in May 2019 they released a set of recommended practices designed to support agency implementation of the federal data strategy. In particular, several of these practices relate to data-driven decision making, encouraging agencies to "champion data use," "use data to guide decision making," and "use data to increase accountability." However, as of September 2020, the action plans for the implementation of the federal data strategy, and the overall CAP goal, did not include all of the required information. For example, they did not include a means to assess progress related to efforts to improve data-driven decision making in the federal government. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions related to implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, in coordination with the PIC, should prioritize efforts to identify and share among agencies proven practices for increasing, and challenges that hamper, the use of performance information in decision making more extensively within agencies. At a minimum, this effort should involve the agencies that our survey suggests may offer such insights. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) have taken some actions towards addressing this recommendation. For example, in 2018 and 2019, the PIC hosted a series of workshops focused on relevant topics, such as how agency staff can develop performance measures and analyze data, and how data-driven reviews are used across the federal government. However, as of October 2020, they had not yet undertaken efforts to directly address the recommendation. They have not engaged the agencies highlighted by our survey results to identify proven practices that would increase, or challenges that are hampering, data-driven decision making within agencies. We will continue to monitor actions related to implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop and provide guidance on the types of projects and activities that agencies involved in the protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin should include in their reports, as well as the processes they should follow in compiling the related budget and spending information. (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, OMB staff did not provide an update. When we receive an update, we will provide information on actions taken.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should coordinate with appropriate state entities to obtain and report the information available to meet the requirements under section 106 of the CALFED Act. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, OMB staff did not provide an update. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should direct staff to update OMB's written guidance for federal and state agencies on submitting data for the budget crosscut reports OMB is required to submit under section 106 of the CALFED Act. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, OMB staff had not provided an update on this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should issue guidance that addresses the 12 CIO responsibilities discussed in this report that are not included in existing OMB guidance--in particular those relating to IT workforce matters. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The agency partially agreed with the recommendation, and planned to issue guidance that addressed eight of the 12 CIO responsibilities discussed in this report that were not included in existing OMB guidance. As of July 2020, the agency had not issued such guidance and asserted that its existing Circular A-130 guidance is adequate to address this recommendation. However, the Circular A-130 does not address these 12 CIO responsibilities. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should define the authority that CIOs are to have when agencies report on CIO authority over IT spending. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation to define the authority that Chief Information Officers (CIOs) are to have when agencies report on CIO authority over information technology spending. However, as of July 2020, the agency had not updated its definition. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure the consistent application of the requirement for respondent time costs, including clarifying instructions for when and how to include fringe benefits. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2019, we requested information from OMB on the agency's implementation of our recommendation but as of May 2019 have not received any status updates. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should review the policies, procedures, and related control activities to ensure that the agency's Paperwork Reduction Act review process is operating effectively. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2019, we requested information from OMB on the agency's implementation of our recommendation but as of May 2019 have not received any status updates. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should designate a chief FOIA officer at the assistant secretary level or equivalent. (Recommendation 18)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: GAO is currently awaiting the agency's response to GAO recommendations.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop guidance on how agencies test to identify improper payments, such as using a risk-based approach to help ensure that key risks of improper payments, such as eligibility, are addressed through testing processes. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB partially concurred with this recommendation. On July 31, 2019, we met with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). At the meeting, OMB officials indicated that OMB's position has not changed since the issuance of the GAO report and what OMB had already communicated to GAO at the exit conference. Specifically, OMB stated that it should not have to develop more specific guidance as each program and activity has its own risks. Instead, inspectors general are better equipped and positioned to review the sampling and estimation plans as part of their annual Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 compliance audits and that agencies, their statisticians, and inspectors general should work out the best testing procedures for their agencies. We continue to believe that OMB could provide suggestions during OMB's annual town meeting related to improper payments for areas that inspectors general may consider. Further, although we agree that programs and activities may face different risks of improper payment, we continue to believe that guidance from OMB on how agencies test to identify improper payments, such as using a risk-based approach, could help ensure that agencies address the specific risks they identify when developing improper payment estimates. In February 2020, OMB informed us that it had no status updates to provide at this time. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop guidance clarifying the appropriate treatment of nonresponse cases during improper payment testing. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB concurred with this recommendation. On July 31, 2019, we met with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). At the meeting, OMB officials indicated that OMB's position has not changed since the issuance of the GAO report and what OMB had already communicated to GAO at the exit conference. At the meeting, OMB officials stated that OMB will "consider" updating guidance in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, to direct agencies to treat nonresponse cases such as improper payments and to include a new category for tracking such cases but only after assessing the impact such guidance would have on the agencies testing and reporting of improper payments. OMB has not taken action to develop this guidance. In February 2020, OMB informed us that it had no status updates to provide at this time. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should provide, concurrent with any future climate change funding reports to Congress, funding information for federal programs with fiscal exposure to climate change. This information should include costs to repair, replace, and improve the weather-related resilience of federally-funded property and resources; costs for federal flood and crop insurance programs; and costs for disaster assistance programs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In a July 2018 letter, OMB reiterated its disagreement with this recommendation, as described in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of the report. OMB also stated that it does not anticipate providing funding information for federal programs with fiscal exposure to climate change concurrent with future climate change reports to Congress. We continue to believe that OMB would have better assurance that it was providing policymakers with the information necessary to make climate change spending trade-offs, if in addition to the funding information for science, technology and international assistance it has previously reported to Congress, OMB also reported funding information for programs whose costs were likely to increase due to climate change impacts. In July 2019, the Disclosing Aid Spent to Ensure Relief Act or the DISASTER Act passed the House and was referred to the Senate. If enacted, this legislation would require OMB to annually report to Congress on all disaster-related assistance provided by the federal government, which includes all federal obligations related to disaster response, recovery, mitigation efforts, and administrative costs associated with these activities for specified agencies and programs. As of October 2020, the legislation has not progressed in the Senate. We will provide updated information regarding this recommendation when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should provide, concurrent with any future climate change funding reports to Congress, a detailed analysis of federal climate change programs it considers to be fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In a July 2018 letter, OMB reiterated its disagreement with this recommendation, as described in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of the report. OMB also stated that it does not anticipate providing a separate, detailed analysis of federal climate change programs that it considers to be fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. We continue to believe that because OMB collects and reports information on federal climate change funding, OMB is uniquely situated to conduct an assessment of potentially fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative programs across the full range of agencies engaged in climate change activities and that by providing this information to Congress in conjunction with future funding reports, OMB could help decision makers more effectively target limited resources. As of October 2020, OMB has not provided a climate change funding report to Congress since the issuance of our April 2018 report.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs staff, as part of the regulatory review process, examine the planned timeframes for implementing economically significant regulations or major rules and identify regulations that appear at potential risk of not complying with the Congressional Review Act's delay requirements and then work with the agencies to ensure compliance with these requirements (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, OMB staff stated that they believe they have addressed the recommendation. They reiterated a statement made shortly before we issued our report that they already take steps to check agencies' compliance with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) during the regulatory review process. We published this statement in our report, but noted that OMB staff did not provide supporting documentation. Nor does the update we received in March 2020 provide supporting documentation and, thus, we cannot verify it. The update from OMB staff in March 2020 also refers to an April 2019 memorandum the Acting Director of OMB issued to the heads of executive agencies outlining updated guidance for complying with CRA. While the memorandum reminds agencies of the CRA requirement that they delay the effective date of a major rule to allow time for congressional review and following publication in the Federal Register, unless there is good cause to not delay the effective date, the Acting Director does not explain whether his office has made changes to the regulatory review process as we recommended. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should provide guidance to executive agencies on managing their personal property, emphasizing that agencies' policies or processes should reflect the requirement to continuously review and identify unneeded personal property. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2019, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials said legislation passed in 2019 (Federal Personal Property Management Act of 2018) made action by OMB unnecessary. When OMB provides documentation to support this view, GAO will determine whether this information is sufficient to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should continue to identify and report to Congress on the status of the top 10 high priority information technology programs and the extent to which USDS is involved in the programs, as was done in June 2015 and June 2016. In doing so, the Director should ensure that these reports are issued quarterly. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: We have been requesting periodic updates from OMB on actions it has taken to address the recommendation. As of April 2020, the agency did not have any updates.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that the Federal CIO is directly involved in the oversight of high priority programs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has not taken actions to address this recommendation, stating that the Federal CIO is not typically involved with overseeing individual IT programs. However, we continue to believe it is important for OMB to take this action, as the results of past CIO-led reviews of troubled programs show that CIO oversight can have significant positive results, including producing significant savings. In December 2019, OMB stated that it had no ongoing or planned action to address the recommendation, noting that the recommendation represents a "fundamental disagreement" between OMB and GAO on the role of the Federal CIO in overseeing programs.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should continue to report on the status of USDS projects. In doing so, the Director should ensure that the reports are issued quarterly. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: We have been requesting periodic updates from OMB on actions it has taken to address the recommendation. As of April 2020, the agency did not have any updates.

Recommendation: GAO recommends that the Director of OMB consider developing a goal that addresses a coordinated federal approach to child well-being among its next set of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals, including working with relevant agencies to ensure their strategic plans include goals and objectives related to the CAP goal. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. In November 2017, OMB staff noted that the agency was developing its next set of CAP goals, which are usually reserved for a limited set of priorities, and expects to announce these goals concurrent with the FY19 budget. As part of the process, agency staff said they consult relevant Congressional committees and other stakeholders. As of September 2019, OMB had not provided an update on its efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should continue to provide ongoing technical assistance that significantly contributes to agencies making their own determinations about their DATA Act reporting requirements and monitor agency submissions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB stated in January 2020 that it believes that the assistance it has previously provided to help agencies make their own reporting determinations fulfills the recommendation's intent. However, because we continue to identify instances where agencies had not submitted these data, we continue to believe that OMB needs to follow up with agencies that are not submitting quarterly data to find out why they are not reporting. It also needs to update its list of agencies required to report.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should clarify and align existing guidance regarding the appropriate definitions agencies should use to collect and report on Primary Place of Performance and establish monitoring mechanisms to foster consistent application and compliance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has issued or contributed to guidance documents that are intended to help agencies collect and report on "Primary Place of Performance." We believe that providing specific examples of how agencies should approach challenging situations when reporting on this data element for grants would provide further clarity.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance--through an update to its Circular No. A-11, a memorandum, or other means--to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for implementing some of the federal program inventory requirements. In that guidance, OMB states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to leverage federal spending data reported on USASpending.gov as required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. Those data can be presented at the program activity level, and therefore could meet the inventory requirements to present program-level spending data. However, OMB's guidance does not yet present any time frames or milestones for meeting other inventory requirements, such as describing the purpose of each program or how it contributes to the agency's mission and goals. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should consider--as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory--using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB states that it and agencies will meet some of the federal inventory requirements by leveraging the spending data reported on USASpending.gov. The guidance notes that this information is provided in a structured information architecture format on USASpending.gov. In July 2019, OMB staff told us that they considered an information architecture approach in response to our past reports on the topic. However, OMB has not yet clarified in guidance or elsewhere how the information architecture format of USASpending.gov-which is currently focused on spending data-could be used to meet additional information reporting requirements and our past recommendations related to the inventory. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond agency priority goals, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. OMB and the PIC, in guidance provided through Circular No. A-11 and the Goal Playbook respectively, have encouraged agencies to expand their use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals. In March 2019, OMB staff told us that they would work with the PIC to provide agencies with case studies and other resources that could help expand their use of data-driven reviews, should agencies choose to do so. However, as of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have not yet identified and shared practices related to expanding the use of those reviews as we recommended. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure that agencies complete important DCOI planning documentation and that the initiative improves governmental efficiency and achieves intended cost savings, the Director of OMB should direct the Federal chief information officer to formally document a requirement for agencies to include plans, as part of existing OMB reporting mechanisms, to implement automated monitoring tools at their agency-owned data centers.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an updated Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) policy that encouraged federal agencies to implement automated monitoring tools at agency-owned data centers using more than 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. However, the updated policy did not require agencies to document a plan for implementing the tools as we recommended. As of January 2020, we have not received further update from OMB and the recommended action has not yet been taken. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should specify elements that agency plans for reducing the unnecessary collection, use, and display of SSNs should contain and require all agencies to develop and maintain complete plans.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should require agencies to modify their inventories of systems containing personally identifiable information to indicate which systems contain SSNs and use the inventories to monitor their reduction of unnecessary collection and use of SSNs.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should provide criteria to agencies on how to determine unnecessary use of SSNs to facilitate consistent application across the federal government.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should take steps to ensure that agencies provide up-to-date status reports on their progress in eliminating unnecessary SSN collection, use, and display in their annual Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 reports.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To improve the consistency and effectiveness of governmentwide efforts to reduce the unnecessary use of SSNs and thereby mitigate the risk of identity theft, the Director of OMB should establish performance measures to monitor agency progress in consistently and effectively implementing planned reduction efforts.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, we have not yet received information to validate the agency's actions on this recommendation. Subsequent to the agency stating that is has taken action, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the pilot programs for disconnected youth can be effectively implemented over the lifetime of the initiative, the Director of OMB should coordinate with relevant federal agencies to identify and estimate expected annual financial and staff resource contributions from each agency, including during the implementation and evaluation phases of the pilots.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and relevant federal agencies described steps they have taken that could address the intent of this recommendation. However, they have not yet shared documentation so that we can independently verify those actions. Since we issued our report in April 2017, federal agencies discontinued contributing financial resources to support joint pilot program activities, such as start-up grants, general technical assistance, or evaluations. According to OMB staff and officials at several agencies in August 2018, that change in contributions began with the fiscal year 2018 pilots. At that time, they all told us that relevant agencies would continue to provide staff support to the pilots, as needed. In April 2020, officials from the Department of Education (Education)-the lead agency for overall performance partnership efforts-informed us that six pilots remain active, through September 2020, and were able to provide information about staff resource contributions. For example, Education officials told us that two of the department's employees devote less than 10 percent of their time to support those six pilots. We have requested additional information from Education to better understand staff resource commitments and contributions from other agencies involved in those six pilots.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal agencies involved in the disconnected youth pilots are able to evaluate pilot outcomes and ultimately communicate to Congress whether and to what extent the flexibilities tested by the pilots should be integrated into broader efforts, the Director of OMB should coordinate with relevant federal agencies to identify criteria or standards for assessing scalability, and collect data needed to address those criteria or standards.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and relevant federal agencies described steps they have taken that could address this recommendation. However, they have not yet shared documentation so that we can independently verify those actions. In August 2018, OMB staff told us that they were coordinating relevant work with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL), which is leading the national evaluation for the disconnected youth pilot programs. OMB staff told us this group was studying specific criteria or standards that could be used for assessing the scalability of the disconnected youth pilot programs. In April 2020, DOL officials told us that the department was examining issues related to scalability in products it is developing as part of the national evaluation. For example, the officials informed us that DOL plans to publish a report in summer 2020 that examines the effects of flexibilities tested by individual pilot programs, and their potential to be scaled. Furthermore, DOL officials told us that the department, in coordination with OMB, HHS, and other relevant agencies, had drafted, but not yet finalized, a memorandum that identifies criteria for assessing scalability. We have requested copies of relevant DOL evaluation products and the memorandum. When provided, we will assess the extent to which they address our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should, to the extent feasible, conduct an analysis of the effectiveness of the various identity theft services relative to alternatives, and revise OMB's guidance to federal agencies in light of this analysis.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As we reported in GAO-19-230, we contacted OMB several times between May 2018 and early March 2019 to update the status of this recommendation, and again in July 2020, but as of July 2020, OMB had not responded with an update.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should explore options to address the risk of duplication in federal agencies' provision of identity theft services in response to data breaches, and take action if viable options are identified.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: No executive action identified. As of July 2020, OMB had not responded to GAO's request for an update.

Recommendation: To better monitor agency use of the DNP working system once a strategy has been developed, the Director of OMB should develop and implement monitoring mechanisms--such as goals, benchmarks, and performance measures--to evaluate agency use of the DNP working system.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB agreed with the concept of monitoring mechanisms and will continue to work with agencies to reduce improper payments and encourage agencies to establish goals to improve payment accuracy that will be monitored and evaluated by OMB. In fiscal year 2019, OMB provided us a status update on July 31, 2019, stating that Treasury does this monitoring and reports updates to OMB on a quarterly basis and that monitoring will occur in conjunction with the President's Management Agenda. In August 2020, Treasury provided us examples of reports that it provides to OMB to assist OMB with evaluating agency use of the DNP working system. We plan to meet with OMB to discuss how it uses these reports and will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the DNP working system is reliable, the Director of OMB should develop a process for comparing agency reporting on the use of the DNP working system to available sources, such as OMB guidance and DNP working system adjudication reports.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with the concept of ensuring that data are reliable and will consider the feasibility of a process to compare agency submissions to available sources to reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the Do Not Pay working system is reliable. OMB provided us a status update on July 1, 2019, stating that OMB will work with Treasury to determine feasibility of doing this review and establishing a process during fiscal year 2019. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the DNP working system is complete, the Director of OMB should revise its guidance to clarify whether agencies should report on their uses of all of the functionalities of the DNP working system in their agency financial reports.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with ensuring the completeness of data and will continue to work with agencies and the Chief Financial Officer community to ensure that agency-reported information on the use of the Do Not Pay (DNP) working system is complete. In fiscal year 2019, OMB provided us a status update on July 1, 2019, stating that this recommendation was addressed in OMB's Circular A-136. Additionally, we met with OMB officials on July 31, 2019. During the meeting, OMB officials informed us that the OMB Circular A-136, Section II.4.5 (bullet 3) (dated June 28, 2019) states that "Agencies should provide a brief narrative of the reduction in improper payments that is attributable to the DNP Initiative, as applicable. See OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Part V for a thorough overview of the roles and responsibilities of agencies to use centralized data sources such as the Treasury Working System and other government databases to prevent improper payments." We have reviewed OMB Circular A-136 and confirmed that the circular does contain the statements above. However, we do not believe that the OMB Circular A-136 meets the intent of our recommendation. GAO issued its recommendation, in part, because GAO found that OMB guidance does not indicate whether agencies should report on all uses of the DNP working system, including those outside payment integration that the DNP working system does not track. For this reason, GAO report concluded that without complete and reliable data and clear guidance on what information agencies should report, OMB cannot effectively monitor and evaluate the use of the DNP working system. Therefore, we do not believe that the OMB Circular A-136 sufficiently clarifies whether agencies should report on their uses of all of the functionalities of the DNP working system in their agency financial reports. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council and General Services Administration, should ensure the information presented on Performance.gov consistently complies with GPRAMA public reporting requirements for the website's content.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2018, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration launched an updated version of Performance.gov. Our updated analysis of information presented on the site in August 2020 found that it does not meet all requirements. However, OMB continues to take action to address this recommendation. For example, Performance.gov does not include a required inventory of federal programs. In July 2020, OMB reported that it is working with agencies to address this requirement. Beginning with the fiscal year 2021 federal budget cycle, OMB and agencies plan to merge implementation of existing web-based reporting of performance and spending data to provide a more coherent picture of federal programs and activities. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To assist CISOs in carrying out their responsibilities, the Director of OMB should issue guidance for agencies' implementation of the FISMA 2014 requirements to ensure that (1) senior agency officials carry out information security responsibilities and (2) agency personnel are held accountable for complying with the agency-wide information security program. This guidance should clarify the role of the agency CISO with respect to these requirements, as well as implementing the other elements of an agency-wide information security program, taking into account the challenges identified in this report.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) partially concurred with this recommendation, but does not intend to directly issue guidance as recommended. As of June 2020, OMB has not provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure performance, prioritize USDS's resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in agency digital service teams, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to ensure that all goals and associated performance measures are outcome-oriented and that performance measures have targets.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in its December 2016 report to Congress, OMB developed three goals for U.S. Digital Service (USDS): (1) rethink how the federal government builds and buys digital services; (2) expand the use of common, platforms, services, and tools; and (3) bring top technical talent into public service. In addition, OMB established performance measures with targets for its third goal and for each of the program's major projects. However, OMB has not established performance measures for the first two USDS goals. Further, the program's third goal is not outcome-oriented. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that USDS established goals for and measured performance on each of the projects the program supports in its fall 2017 report to Congress. Although measuring performance on projects can provide USDS with valuable information, this effort does not address goals and performance measurement on the overall USDS program. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure performance, prioritize USDS's resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in agency digital service teams, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to assess actual results for each performance measure.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in its December 2016 report to Congress, OMB assessed the results of performance measures for one of the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) program's goals--bring top technical talent into public service--and for each of the program's major projects. However, OMB has not established performance measures for the other two USDS goals--rethink how the federal government builds and buys digital services; and expand the use of common, platforms, services, and tools. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that USDS established goals for and measured performance on each of the projects the program supports in its fall 2017 report to Congress. As of July 2019, USDS has not publicly released any subsequent reports to Congress or additional information on its goals and performance measures. Although measuring performance on projects can provide USDS with valuable information, this effort does not address performance measurement on the overall USDS program. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure performance, prioritize USDS's resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in agency digital service teams, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to update USDS policy to clearly define the responsibilities and authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and the digital service teams and require existing agency digital service teams to address this policy. In doing so, the Federal Chief Information Officer should ensure that this policy is aligned with relevant federal law and OMB guidance on CIO responsibilities and authorities.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. In particular, OMB updated its digital service team policy to require that teams appropriately inform their chief information officers (CIO) regarding U.S. Digital Service (USDS) projects. However, the policy does not describe the responsibilities or authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and digital service teams. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that the program updated digital service team charters to address the role of agency CIOs. As of May 2020, USDS has yet to provide us with the updated digital service team charters. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help lessen confusion among the public and policy makers regarding federal data on sexual violence, the Director of OMB should establish a federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics. The forum should consider the broad range of differences across the data collection efforts to assess which differences enhance or hinder the overall understanding of sexual violence in the United States.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: At the time of our report, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation but stated that it did not believe convening a forum was the most strategic use of resources because agencies were not far enough along with their data collection efforts. We disagree with OMB's assertion because 7 of the 10 data collection efforts have been in place for more than 10 years, and several have been in place for multiple decades. As of December 2019, OMB has not provided information on any new efforts to establish a federal interagency forum on sexual violence statistics.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the contributions of tax expenditures toward the achievement of agency goals are identified and measured, the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Treasury, should work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals, as appropriate--that is, they should identify which specific tax expenditures contribute to specific strategic objectives and agency priority goals.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of December 2019, OMB had not begun to work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to the agencies' specific strategic objectives and agency priority goals, as GAO recommended in 2016. OMB staff told GAO that, although they agreed with the recommendation, it was not an effort they were pursuing due to competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. Without additional OMB assistance, agencies may continue to have difficulty identifying whether or which of the dozens of tax expenditures-representing an estimated $1.32 trillion in forgone revenues in fiscal year 2019-contribute to their goals.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should identify and publish a specific goal associated with its non-provisioned O&M spending measure.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. However, in July 2020, OMB stated that the implementation of this recommendation would be counter to the Administration's focus of prioritizing modernization activities specifically for High Value Assets and, as a result, it does not intend on implementing this recommendation. We disagree and believe that identifying and publishing a specific goal aimed at reducing non-provisioned spending (i.e., spending associated with systems that are not cloud or shared service-based) aligns with the Administration's Cloud Smart strategy to accelerate agency adoption of cloud-based solutions. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should commit to a firm date by which its draft guidance on legacy systems will be issued, and subsequently direct agencies to identify legacy systems and/or investments needing to be modernized or replaced.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. In July 2020, OMB stated that agencies were directed to manage the risk to High Value Assets associated with legacy systems in OMB's December 2018 guidance. While OMB's guidance does direct agencies to identify, report, assess, and remediate issues associated with High Value Assets, it does not require agencies to do so for all legacy systems. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve security over federal systems, including those considered to be high impact, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should issue plan and practices specified in the Cybersecurity Strategy and Implementation Plan.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB concurred with our recommendation. On December 9, 2016, OMB issued memorandum M-17-09, Management of Federal High Value Assets, which lists some existing policies and guidance and other actions that agencies need to take to protect IT assets. Further information is needed to validate implementation of the recommendation. As of March 2020, the agency has not provided evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. Subsequent to OMB informing us that it has completed implementation, we plan to verify the agency's actions.

Recommendation: To promote further transparency in measuring the federal government's progress against deficit reduction targets required under current law, the Director of the Office of Management of Budget should identify and publicly report the total amount of actual reductions in budget authority government-wide each year as a result of sequestration or the reduction of discretionary spending limits under BBEDCA.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018, OMB staff maintained their position of disagreement with this recommendation as summarized in our April 2016 report. As of January 2020, OMB has not provided any plans to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agencies report consistent and comparable data on federal spending, the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Treasury, should provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential clarity, consistency, or quality issues with the definitions for specific data elements including Award Description and Primary Place of Performance and that they clearly document and communicate these actions to agencies providing this data as well as to end-users.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has taken some actions to address this recommendation related to procurement awards, such as adopting a shorter character limit for the "Award Description" element and providing additional guidance for the "Primary Place of Performance" element. However, it needs to provide additional guidance for these data elements related to grant awards to ensure collection of consistent and comparable information.

Recommendation: To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access to IQA information on agency websites, the Director of OMB should consolidate and centralize on OMB's IQA guidance website a government-wide summary of requests for correction submitted under the IQA.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: According to OMB, during the last two years OIRA has significantly improved the ease of access to and findability of documents on OMB's information quality website. OMB says it has a number of additional improvements in progress. We have requested information on those additional improvements. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access to IQA information on agency websites, the Director of OMB should work with the Department of Defense and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to help ensure that they post their IQA administrative mechanisms and IQA guidance online.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: According to OMB, it worked with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to improve the accessibility of their Information Quality Act guidance. In addition, OMB stated that FHFA took it upon themselves to update their guidelines. OMB has not provided any information regarding its work with DOD in this area. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access to IQA information on agency websites, the Director of OMB should provide additional guidance for agencies to help improve the transparency and usability of their IQA websites to help ensure the public can easily find and access online information about agency IQA implementation. Such guidance should include (1) specific time frames for agencies to post information on the IQA correction requests they have received, including making it clear when agencies have not received IQA requests; (2) instructions for agencies to include a statement on their IQA websites that the agencies may address correction requests through other administrative processes; (3) instructions for agencies to include, when responding to correction requests, whether those agencies plan to address the request through another administrative processes, and if so, which process they will use; and (4) suggestions for improving usability of agencies' websites including fixing broken links.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: According to OMB, in conjunction with its annual data call, the agency has and will continue to provide guidance to agencies about improving the transparency and usability of their websites, including the need to update broken links. In addition OMB issued M-19-15, designed to address a number of related and additional implementation concerns, including transparency and procedural improvements. OMB's guidance to date has not included specific items as specified in the recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that federal program spending data are provided to the public in a transparent, useful, and timely manner, the Director of OMB should accelerate efforts to determine how best to merge DATA Act purposes and requirements with the GPRAMA requirement to produce a federal program inventory.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB issued guidance in June 2019 that provides an overview and timeline for merging DATA Act reporting with implementation of a federal program inventory. To fully address this recommendation, OMB needs to provide additional details on the implementation of these requirements.

Recommendation: To ensure that the integrity of data standards is maintained over time, the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Treasury, should establish a set of clear policies and processes for developing and maintaining data standards that are consistent with leading practices for data governance.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB issued several guidance documents in 2019 that set out key aspects of a process for agencies to establish standards for, and practices for governing, managing, and protecting, all federal data. These and related efforts represent significant progress, but OMB needs to ensure this broad guidance is followed by clear and specific requirements for agency data governance to ensure the quality of their DATA Act reporting.

Recommendation: To help agencies decide whether to use ESPCs to consolidate federal data centers, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should document, for the purposes of scoring ESPCs, (1) what qualifies as energy-related savings and (2) the allowable proportion of energy and energy-related cost savings.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, GAO requested information on the status of the recommendation. We will update the recommendation's status when information is received from OMB.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to collaborate with each other in defining and identifying programs that contribute to common outcomes.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, revise relevant guidance to provide a time frame for what constitutes "persistent over time" that agencies can use as a decision rule for whether to include short-term efforts as programs.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, define plans for when additional agencies will be required to develop program inventories.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by designating tax expenditure as a program type in relevant guidance.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to better present a more coherent picture of all federal programs, include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory effort by developing, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related performance and budget information.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of October 2020, OMB had not taken action to include tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, as GAO recommended in October 2014. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs on a central, government-wide website. The federal program inventory is the primary tool for agencies to identify programs that contribute to their goals, according to OMB's guidance. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In June 2019 and July 2020, OMB issued guidance (Circular No. A-11) that states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. According to OMB, this will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements nor the actions GAO recommended including designating tax expenditures as a program type. By including tax expenditures in the inventory, OMB could help ensure that agencies are properly identifying the contributions of tax expenditures to the achievement of their goals.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their program definition approach and identified programs when developing or updating their inventories.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, revise relevant guidance to direct agencies to identify in their inventories the performance goal(s) to which each program contributes.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful, the Director of OMB should, to help ensure that the information agencies provide in their inventories is useful to federal decision makers and key stakeholders, and to provide greater transparency and ensure consistency in federal program funding and performance information, ensure, during OMB reviews of inventories, that agencies consistently identify, as applicable, the strategic goals, strategic objectives, agency priority goals, and cross-agency priority goals each program supports.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not taken any actions in response to our recommendations related to the federal program inventory. Although OMB published an initial inventory covering the programs of 24 federal agencies in May 2013, OMB decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for doing so. OMB's guidance states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to present program-level spending data, by leveraging what is reported on USASpending.gov as required by the DATA Act. However, OMB's guidance does not cover other inventory information reporting requirements, nor the actions we recommended. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To improve transparency in the rulemaking process, provide agencies and the public with information on why regulations are considered to be significant regulatory actions, and promote consistency in the designation of rules as significant regulatory actions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should work with agencies to clearly communicate the reasons for designating a regulation as a significant regulatory action. Specifically, OMB should encourage agencies to clearly state in the preamble of final significant regulations the section of Executive Order 12866's definition of a significant regulatory action that applies to the regulation.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 14, 2015 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Director of OMB stated that nothing in the Executive Order 12866 prevents agencies from identifying the particular relevant definition of significance in rules, and that some rules do contain this information. The letter also stated that OMB believes it is appropriate to leave agencies flexibility in how they comply with Executive Order 12866, since such specific procedures for including such information is not a requirement of the Executive Order itself. However, in written comments submitted to GAO in March 2020, OMB stated that there are numerous examples from the past few years of agencies clearly identifying in the preambles of significant regulations the applicable section(s) of EO 12866's significance definition. OMB further stated that it encourages agencies to continue and expand this practice, especially where doing so has been found to improve agency planning for the regulatory process or to otherwise enhance decision-making. When we can further confirm that OMB has taken steps to encourage agencies to include this information in rules, we will provide an update.

Recommendation: To improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the USASpending.gov website, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with Treasury's Fiscal Service, should clarify guidance on (1) agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations; (2) the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements to non-classified awards associated with intelligence operations; (3) the requirement that award titles describe the award's purpose (consistent with our prior recommendation); and (4) agency maintenance of authoritative records adequate to verify the accuracy of required data reported for use by USASpending.gov.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has taken several steps related to this recommendation as of December 2019, but have not fully addressed it. Specifically, working with the Department of the Treasury to implement the DATA Act, OMB took partial action on two aspects of the recommendation and are still considering actions on two others. 1) OMB staff said they continue to deliberate on agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations. 2) OMB staff provided a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) addressing the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements for recipient information related to classified or sensitive information. GAO reviewed the FAQ and determined that additional guidance is still needed to ensure complete reporting of unclassified awards as required by FFATA. 3) OMB staff have agreed that it will be important to clarify guidance on how agencies can report on award titles that appropriately describes the awards' purposes and noted that they are working on providing additional guidance to agencies as part of their larger DATA Act implementation efforts. 4) OMB released policy guidance in May 2016 (MPM 2016-03) that identifies the authoritative sources for reporting procurement and award data. However, GAO's review of this policy guidance determined that it does not address the underlying source that can be used to verify the accuracy of non-financial procurement data or any source for data on assistance awards.

Recommendation: To help mitigate confusion about the use of reverse auctions in federal acquisitions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should take steps to amend the FAR to address agencies' use of reverse auctions.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In providing comments on this report, OMB generally concurred with this recommendation. The FAR Council members issued a timetable in Spring 2020 for the proposed regulatory changes to address the use of reverse auctions in response to GAO's recommendations and 2015 guidance released by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The notice of proposed rulemaking was planned for August 2020. As of August 10, 2020, the notice of proposed rulemaking had not been published. OMB officials did not provide a revised date when they planned to publish the notice.

Recommendation: To proactively prepare for oversight of future disaster relief funding, the Director of OMB should develop standard guidance for federal agencies to use in designing internal control plans for disaster relief funding. Such guidance could leverage existing internal control review processes and should include, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) robust criteria for identifying and documenting incremental risks and mitigating controls related to the funding and (2) requirements for documenting the linkage between the incremental risks related to disaster funding and efforts to address known internal control risks.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: To address the recommendation, OMB should issue guidance on internal control for disaster relief funding, including criteria for identifying additional risks and mitigating controls related to the funding and a requirement to link these incremental risks to ongoing efforts to address known internal control risks. On July 15, 2016, OMB issued the revised Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control. The Circular requires agencies to implement enterprise risk management, which includes the development of a risk profile that analyzes the risks faced in achieving strategic objectives and identifies options for addressing them. In April 2017, OMB staff stated that they believe that the implementation of enterprise risk management through Circular No. A-123 satisfies the intent our recommendation. Because the responsibility for implementing enterprise risk management lies with agency management, Circular No. A-123 does not include specific guidance for identifying risks related to disaster funding. Further discussion and documentation to support OMB's position that the revised Circular addresses our recommendation will be necessary. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Sec. 21208(c) requires OMB to issue standard guidance for Federal agencies to use in designing internal control plans for disaster relief funding in order to proactively prepare for oversight of future disaster relief funds. The Act states this guidance shall leverage existing internal control review processes and shall include, at a minimum, (1) robust criteria for identifying and documenting incremental risks and mitigating controls related to the funding, and (2) guidance for documenting the linkage between the incremental risks related to disaster funding and efforts to address known internal control risks. GAO reviewed OMB's actions to implement the law. On June 28, 2019, GAO, 2017 Disaster Relief Oversight: Strategy Needed to Ensure Agencies' Internal Control Plans Provide Sufficient Information, GAO-19-479 (Washington, D.C.: Jun 28, 2019) reported the 2013 recommendation remains open and that we plan to continue monitoring OMB's progress in implementing this priority recommendation. Further, the report stated that OMB did not have an effective strategy to ensure that agencies timely submitted internal control plans; and OMB's Memorandum M-18-14, Implementation of Internal Controls and Grant Expenditures for the Disaster-Related Appropriations lacked specific instructions to agencies on what to include in their internal control plans. As such, a new recommendation was warranted. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure the success of PortfolioStat, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to improve transparency of and accountability for PortfolioStat by publicly disclosing planned and actual data consolidation efforts and related cost savings by agency.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2019, OMB had taken steps to improve transparency of and accountability for PortfolioStat, as GAO recommended in November 2013. In October 2015, the agency started displaying actual data consolidation savings data on the federal information technology (IT) dashboard. As of April 2018, however, OMB was not requiring that agencies report planned PortfolioStat cost savings stating this was as a result of agency feedback, and streamlining of data collection efforts based upon the decision that reporting on realized cost savings is more valuable than reporting on planned or projected cost savings.In March 2019, OMB stated that it was "exploring better approaches to cost savings as reported by agencies to the IT Dashboard." We are following up with OMB to determine whether these approaches include publicly disclosing planned and actual data consolidation efforts and related cost savings by agency.

Recommendation: To enhance the value of Performance.gov for intended audiences and improve the ability to identify and prioritize potential improvements, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--working with the Performance Improvement Council and the General Services Administration--should seek to ensure that all performance, search, and customer satisfaction metrics, consistent with leading practices outlined in HowTo.gov, are tracked for the website, and, where appropriate, create goals for those metrics to help identify and prioritize potential improvements to Performance.gov.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration (GSA) had taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. According to information that OMB staff provided in March 2019, OMB and GSA tracked 12 metrics for Performance.gov that are recommended for federal websites. However, as of October 2020, OMB and GSA had not created goals for any of those metrics, nor did they track 12 additional recommended metrics. In March 2019, GSA staff told us that, in lieu of goals, OMB and GSA staff held regular meetings to discuss the data collected for the metrics they tracked. However, without the additional metrics or any goals, OMB and GSA lack a full understanding of how well the website is performing, and what actions are needed to improve its performance and usability to achieve desired results. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: When such revisions are made, the Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to test and implement these provisions.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. According to information provided by OMB and PIC staff in June 2015, although OMB revised its guidance as we recommended, it did not work with the PIC to test implementation of these provisions. Instead, they told us that both PIC and OMB staff ensure agencies are implementing these provisions of their guidance when reviewing agency priority goal (APG) quarterly update submissions. However, our analyses of agencies' APG updates since that time has continued to find that implementation of these provisions is mixed. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: In addition, as OMB works with agencies to enhance Performance.gov to include additional information about APGs, the Director of OMB should ensure that agencies adhere to OMB's guidance for website updates by providing a description of how input from congressional consultations was incorporated into each APG.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken limited actions to address this recommendation. In July 2017, OMB staff said that they planned on highlighting the requirement for congressional consultation as they updated the 2018-2019 APGs, which were first published in February 2018 and were updated quarterly. However, our periodic analyses of Performance.gov showed that neither the updated version of the site, nor the reporting templates for individual APGs, contained a space for providing a description of input from Congress. In its July 2020 guidance, OMB directed agencies to highlight congressional input, if such input was relevant to setting a specific goal, in the APG overview section of the template. We will continue to monitor progress.

Recommendation: To better leverage agency quarterly performance reviews as a mechanism to manage performance toward agency priority and other agency-level performance goals, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should work with the Performance Improvement Council and other relevant groups to identify and share promising practices to help agencies extend their quarterly performance reviews to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their agency performance goals.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) have taken little action to address this recommendation. In August 2017, PIC staff told us that they were working to identify examples where agencies had included representatives from outside organizations in their performance reviews, and would then disseminate promising practices based on those experiences. However, according to information shared by OMB and PIC staff in March 2019, they had not taken any additional action, nor had they identified or shared any such practices. OMB staff emphasized that while some agencies found it is useful to engage external stakeholders in their reviews, agencies generally view them as internal management meetings. OMB's July 2020 guidance continues to direct agencies to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel from outside the agency that contribute to the accomplishment of Agency Priority Goals or other priorities. However, supplementing this guidance with insights into how to do this well could help ensure that agencies can effectively bring together key players to achieve common goals. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better balance the benefits of expedited rulemaking procedures with the benefits of public comments that are typically part of regular notice-and-comment rulemakings, and improve the quality and transparency of rulemaking records, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Chairman of Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), should issue guidance to encourage agencies to respond to comments on final major rules, for which the agency has discretion, that are issued without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In a status update from OMB received on March 6, 2020, OMB stated that it agrees that agencies should respond to comments on final major rules, for which the agency has discretion, that are issued without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking. OMB says it will continue to prioritize this issue during review of regulations under EO 12866, and that it is currently considering whether additional guidance is appropriate and will consult with the staff of the Administrative Conference of the United States on this issue.

Recommendation: To enhance federal agencies' ability to realize enterprise architecture benefits, and to assist agencies in measuring and reporting outcomes achieved through enterprise architecture, the Director of OMB should ensure that the planned December 2012 guidance for enterprise architecture value measurement and reporting includes (1) sufficient details on the method and metrics that agencies could use to measure their architecture program's value and (2) a requirement for agencies to include in their April 2013 enterprise roadmap submissions a measurement method (i.e., steps to be followed) and metrics, and report on the outcomes and benefits achieved through enterprise architecture.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: As of December 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not fully addressed our recommendation. In March 2013, the office required agencies to submit annually an Enterprise Roadmap, which was to include an appendix on enterprise architecture outcomes. To prepare the appendix, the office provided agencies with a template to document architecture metrics and measurement methods. The template included examples of outcome metrics and a field where agencies were to document measurement methods. However, OMB did not provide details on the methods that agencies could use to measure architecture outcomes or require that agencies include the steps to be followed for measuring outcomes. In March 2019, OMB said that it was working with agencies to determine approaches for measuring and reporting outcomes achieved through enterprise architecture. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed the recommendation. We will continue to follow up with OMB on its efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to maintain progress in maximizing the efficiency of existing data sources, and to improve the broader efficiency of the federal statistical system and improve communication among agencies and others, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Chief Statistician, should work with the ICSP, when OMB next updates guidance on agency survey and statistical information collection and dissemination methods, to include additional details on actions agencies can take to meet requirements to identify duplication, to consult with persons outside of the agency, and address other requirements as appropriate.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, OMB staff reported that Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology has been developing two new products, featured in the Federal Data Strategy 2020 Action Plan, that they believe will be responsive to this recommendation when completed. They are (1) an update to Statistical Working Paper 22 on statistical disclosure limitation methodology, and (2) guidance on measuring and reporting data quality.

Recommendation: In order to maintain progress in maximizing the efficiency of existing data sources, and to improve the broader efficiency of the federal statistical system and improve communication among agencies and others, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Chief Statistician, should work with the ICSP to create new methods or enhance existing methods to improve the dissemination of information and resources produced by interagency statistical committees. For example, such enhancements could include increasing the timeliness and availability of information on websites to better capture the full range of products and identify committee priorities.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2020, OMB staff reported that Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology has been developing two new products, featured in the Federal Data Strategy 2020 Action Plan, that they believe will be responsive to this recommendation when completed. They are (1) an update to Statistical Working Paper 22 on statistical disclosure limitation methodology, and (2) guidance on measuring and reporting data quality.

Recommendation: In order to maintain progress in maximizing the efficiency of existing data sources, and to increase the reliability of the information presented on the Reginfo.gov website and in OMB's internal system, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Chief Statistician, should work with the ICSP to implement quality-control procedures designed to identify and remedy any differences between cost and burden information provided on the website and in the related supporting statement documentation that underlies this information.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB staff reported that because it publishes cost and burden information in Federal Register notices, PRA statements, and on RegInfo.gov, the public is able to identify discrepancies and bring them to OMB's attention. We believe that the responsibility to identify these discrepancies should belong to OMB and not the public.

Recommendation: To help further the progress toward meeting the goals of IPIA and determining states' role in assisting federal agencies to report a national improper payment estimate on federal programs, the Director, Office of Management and Budget, should expand IPIA guidance to provide criteria that federal agencies should consider when developing a plan or methodology for estimating a national improper payment estimate for state-administered programs, such as criteria that address the nature and extent of data and documentation needed from the states to calculate a national improper payment estimate.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concurred with this recommendation. Since the issuance of the GAO report, OMB has made several revisions to its OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix C "Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments." The latest revision is dated June 26, 2018. The intent of OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix C, is to ensure that federal agencies focus on prevention and have the proper incentives to improve their improper payment rates. In August 2020, OMB provided us its improper payment guidance on sampling and estimation in place at the time of the GAO audit. Based on this documentation, we sent a follow-up request to OMB for additional information. We are currently waiting to hear back from OMB so we can continue with our review. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should resume presenting tax expenditures in the budget together with related outlay programs to show a truer picture of the federal support within a mission area.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: No executive action taken as of February 2020. OMB had not presented tax expenditures in the fiscal year 2021 budget together with the related outlay programs. OMB did not agree that GAO's September 2005 recommendation is necessary and stated that presenting information on tax expenditures together with related outlay programs is not useful for budgeting and that such a presentation is not part of the congressional budget process. However, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires a list of tax expenditures, including special tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential tax rates. Whereas OMB favors reporting tax expenditures separately from the rest of the budget, GAO has reported that an integrated presentation is also useful to show the relative magnitude of tax expenditures compared to spending and credit programs across mission areas. OMB previously presented tax expenditure sums alongside outlays and credit activity for each budget function in the federal budget from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, but discontinued the practice. Tax expenditures resulted in $1.32 trillion in forgone revenue in fiscal year 2019 and have been roughly approximate to federal discretionary spending levels in recent years.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should require that tax expenditures be included in the PART process and any future such budget and performance review processes so that tax expenditures are considered along with related outlay programs in determining the adequacy of federal efforts to achieve national objectives.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB made some progress in including tax expenditures along with related outlay programs in the executive branch's budget and performance review processes, as GAO recommended in September 2005. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not developed a systematic approach for conducting such reviews, and OMB staff told GAO that they were not pursuing the effort because of competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. Prior to that time, OMB had made some progress on the action. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that the administration would work toward examining the objectives and effects of the wide range of tax expenditures in the budget. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires OMB and the agencies to identify the relevant tax expenditures that contribute to each crosscutting priority goal. Beginning with its August 2012 update to Circular No. A-11 with guidance for implementing GPRAMA and continuing in subsequent annual updates, OMB has directed agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to each of their agency priority goals. Beginning with the July 2013 update, OMB expanded its guidance to include identifying these contributions to agency strategic objectives. In both its July 2013 and July 2014 guidance, OMB stated that it planned to work with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and agencies to facilitate alignment of tax expenditure information with agency priority goals and strategic objectives. However, in its June 2015 update of this guidance, OMB removed the language about working with Treasury and agencies to align tax expenditures with agency goals. OMB's December 2019 guidance still requires agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their agency priority goals and strategic objectives.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should develop and implement a framework for conducting performance reviews of tax expenditures. In developing the framework, the Director should (1) determine which agencies will have leadership responsibilities to review tax expenditures, how reviews will be coordinated among agencies with related responsibilities, and how to address the lack of credible performance information on tax expenditures; (2) set a schedule for conducting tax expenditure evaluations; (3) re-establish appropriate methods to test the overall evaluation framework and make improvements as experience is gained; and (4) to identify any additional resources that may be needed for tax expenditure reviews.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of February 2020, when the President's fiscal year 2021 budget was released, the Director of OMB had not developed a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance, as GAO recommended in June 1994 and again in September 2005. Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that developing an evaluation framework is a significant challenge due to limited data availability and analytical constraints of isolating the effect of any single program. The administration planned to focus on addressing some of these challenges so it can work toward crosscutting analyses that examine tax expenditures alongside related spending programs. However, OMB and Treasury have not reported on progress on this recommendation since the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. As of December 2019, OMB said its Office of Economic Policy is responsible for the framework outline. OMB said it was exploring options to further develop its evaluation framework, which would include working with Treasury. The budget released in February 2020 did not provide an update on these evaluation framework efforts.