Recommendation: FERC should review its current interagency agreements that pertain to its onshore LNG permitting process, and implement any needed updates. FERC's review should include input from cooperating agencies and CEQ. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In FERC's comments on a draft of our report, the Chairman of the Commission agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated that he has directed FERC staff to develop appropriate steps to implement the recommendations.

Recommendation: Once FERC has completed the review and implemented any necessary updates to interagency agreements, FERC should establish a process to regularly conduct such reviews and, as necessary, update the agreements. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In FERC's comments on a draft of our report, the Chairman of the Commission agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated that he has directed FERC staff to develop appropriate steps to implement the recommendations.

Recommendation: FERC should review its LNG regulations and replace the reference to the outdated 1984 earthquake standard. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In FERC's comments on a draft of our report, the Chairman of the Commission agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated that he has directed FERC staff to develop appropriate steps to implement the recommendations.

Recommendation: FERC should establish a process to conduct a standards-specific review of regulations that incorporate standards every 3 to 5 years and to update the regulations, if necessary. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In FERC's comments on a draft of our report, the Chairman of the Commission agreed with our findings and recommendations and stated that he has directed FERC staff to develop appropriate steps to implement the recommendations.

Recommendation: The Administrator of PHMSA should conduct a standards-specific review of regulations that incorporate standards and, if necessary, update the regulations or document its decision for not updating them. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In the Department of Transportation's comments on a draft of our report, the department concurred with our recommendation and said that PHMSA is currently developing a proposed rule that would incorporate updated standards, as described in our report.

Recommendation: The Administrator of PHMSA should establish a process to conduct a standards-specific review of regulations that incorporate standards every 3 to 5 years and to update the regulations, if necessary. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In the Department of Transportation's comments on a draft of our report, the department concurred with our recommendation and said that PHMSA has established a timeline for conducting a standards-specific review of LNG facility regulations every 3 to 5 years. We plan to follow-up on the status of the recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the progress the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and identified an action officer to lead implementation of this recommendation. DOD stated that it is developing a sampling plan with criteria to consider for assessing the consistent use of standard designs. DOD stated that it would identify projects that were completed during the year that used standard designs and that it would then assess the progress that the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently by sampling from the completed projects. DOD stated that, based on the results of this analysis, it would adjust the metrics and frequency of future analyses, as appropriate. DOD stated that it expects this effort to be completed in Spring 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the effects of the use of standard designs, specifically the progress the Centers are making in reducing design costs and time, construction costs and time, and change orders. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and stated that it planned to establish relevant performance measures to analyze efforts to reduce design costs and time, construction costs and time, and the number of change orders. DOD stated that it expects to develop standards containing the metrics, frequency of analysis, and means of reporting. DOD stated that it expects to present the results of its analysis at the FY2020 Military Programs After Action Review in January 2021.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should assess the agency's large facilities oversight workforce to identify any project management competency gaps, develop a plan to address any gaps and time frames for doing so, and monitor progress in closing them. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of September 2019, had awarded a contract for a proficiency assessment and workforce gap analysis. NSF anticipated finishing the proficiency assessment and workforce gap analysis by the second quarter calendar year 2020 and planned to consider options to address any identified gaps, such as identifying workforce development training opportunities. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should establish criteria for the project management expertise of award recipients for large facilities projects and incorporate the criteria in project requirements and external panel reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had drafted but not finalized new language for the Major Facilities Guide and related supplemental award terms and conditions for major facilities. The new language would require award recipients to document their plans for meeting project management competencies. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of NSF should ensure, through a requirement or other means, that award recipients for large facilities projects provide information to NSF on any lessons learned or best practices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had drafted but not finalized supplemental award terms and conditions for major facilities to require recipients to participate in NSF's process for identifying and sharing lessons learned on projects - for example, by sending appropriate staff to the annual major facilities workshop that NSF hosts to provide a collaborative forum for continuous learning and information-sharing or by presenting lessons learned or good practices at the workshop. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should determine the estimated effects of cost inflation on planned CSCP embassy construction capacity and time frames and update this information for stakeholders on a regular basis, such as through the annual budgeting process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO had developed a worldwide construction inflation rate and had integrated this rate into its bureau budget request for fiscal year 2021. According to OBO officials, OBO is working to update its budget guidance to ensure the inflation rate is updated and integrated into future bureau budget requests on a regular basis. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should ensure that the Director of OBO conducts an OBO-wide workforce analysis to assess staffing levels and workload capacity needed to carry out the full range of OBO's mission goals, to include the CSCP. Such an assessment could provide a basis for broader stakeholder discussion of OBO's human capital needs and potential prioritization of activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO was working with the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an OBO-wide workforce analysis, with initial findings and recommendations planned for early 2020. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that NNSA will provide clear information to stakeholders about the program needs that the revised CMRR project will satisfy, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, in his capacity as the NNSA Administrator, to update the program requirements document for the revised CMRR project to clarify whether the project will provide plutonium analysis equipment to meet the needs of DOE and NNSA programs other than those in the Office of Defense Programs.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, LANL has drafted a revised PRD but NNSA's review is not yet complete. This recommendation will remain open until we can evaluate the PRD.

Recommendation: To help ensure that EM more effectively manages all its projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management and the Director of the Office of Management, as appropriate, to provide the Office of Acquisition and Project Management with information on EM's project classification decisions to ensure that all capital asset projects have been appropriately classified and are managed in accordance with DOE Order 413.3B.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in fall 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation phase of cleanup. This policy will become an appendix in DOE's Order 413.3B. EM officials further stated that EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that would classify the remaining types of activities not covered by the Cleanup Project Management Policy, including what EM currently classifies as operations activities. EM plans to implement this policy by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and to improve the transparency and usefulness of cost analyses prepared for future NNSA nuclear facilities modernization projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that life cycle cost analyses include a thorough and balanced evaluation of short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives. Such analyses should consider the full useful life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirement for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time that might produce results that favor one option over another.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and because of the importance of mitigating the risks of outsourcing nuclear weapons components and other information that if exported, might allow potential adversaries to develop or advance their nuclear capabilities, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to take immediate action to assess the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of KCP's current export control and nonproliferation practices and, if appropriate, initiate corrective actions to strengthen that oversight.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.