Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Foreign governments"
GAO-20-404, Apr 3, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: TSA concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it by updating the BASE Cybersecurity Security Action Item section to ensure it reflects the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Detect and Recover functions. When we confirm what actions TSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-112, Dec 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2964
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-401, May 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, two current bills in Congress address this matter. First, the Return Expenses Paid and Yielded Act would amend the Arms Export Control Act to remove an exclusion from the definition of administrative expenses related to military pay and unfunded civilian retirement and other benefits, and would require DOD to review and report to Congress on options for further expanding the use of FMS administrative fees. Second, the Annual Duplication Report Act of 2019 would require DOD to assess and report on (1) any expenses incurred by the U.S. government in operating the FMS program that are not paid for by the administrative fee, (2) their estimated annual cost, (3) the costs and benefits of funding such expenses, and (4) any legislative changes needed to allow the FMS administrative fee to pay for such expenses.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2018, DSCA had planned to update its policy to clarify its process for completing comprehensive reviews of the administrative fee rate to ensure that adequate planning for the next rate review allows it to be completed on time. However, in updating its policy in April 2019, DSCA did not include any clarifications to ensure comprehensive reviews would be completed at least every 5 years or be adequately planned. As of August 2020, DSCA officials indicated they planned to take further action to address this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation. In October 2018, DSCA sent a memo to DCMA and DFAS directing them to resolve the reimbursement issues and to develop a corrective action plan. As of August 2020, DSCA officials estimated this corrective action plan would be implemented by December 2020. . We will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA partially concurred with this recommendation, noting that although performing a comprehensive review of the CAS fee rate every 5 years is a preferred practice, the agency did not plan to do so for its upcoming fee review due to various factors. In January 2020, DSCA lowered the CAS fee rate based on a rate review completed in 2019, six years after the prior rate review. In addition, in April 2019, DSCA updated related policy but included no clarifications to ensure future comprehensive reviews would be completed at least every 5 years or be adequately planned. As of August 2020, DSCA officials indicated they planned to take further action to address this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-18-249, Feb 14, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8612
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In commenting on the report in February 2018, Treasury concurred with the recommendation. In December 2018, Treasury noted that the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 requires each CFIUS member agency to submit detailed spending plans annually for seven years to appropriate congressional committees, including estimated expenditures and staffing levels, and requires annual testimony for seven years from the CFIUS staff chairperson regarding anticipated resource needs. As of November 2019, GAO continues to monitor this recommendation.
GAO-17-640, Jul 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. As of February 2020, USDA has not developed guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. USDA reported that proposed McGovern-Dole commodities are selected in coordination with the host governments in order to ensure they will not disrupt local production, markets, or food prices. However, as of February 2020, USDA has not taken action to monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify whether any potential negative effects have occurred, such as disruptions of local production or unusual changes in food prices. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation, and has reported actions to address the recommendation. GAO has requested documentation from USDA to confirm the actions taken. As of February 2020, USDA has not provided documentation confirming actions taken. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.
GAO-17-433, May 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6991
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD was in the process of developing a plan to address this recommendation. GAO is continuing to monitor DOD's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD was in the process of developing a plan to address this recommendation. GAO is continuing to monitor DOD's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. The department commented that the relevant organizations have most, if not all, of the written procedures that are necessary for reporting these dates in the Enhanced Freight Tracking System. However, it would coordinate with all interested parties to update these procedures if needed. As of October 2019, GAO was continuing to monitor DOD's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD officials said they had updated the 1st TSC's written standard operating procedures to include the 1st TSC's commander's verbal order, and GAO was in the process of obtaining documentation of these changes.
GAO-17-201, Dec 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3149
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. In April 2017, State reported that it was taking steps to identify and collect information that would enable it to monitor the Cuban economy and changes in the economic environment, including with the Cuban private sector. For example, State noted that Embassy Havana had developed a plan for in-country travel and reporting by identifying key sectors and provinces that could provide additional insights on the Cuban economy. As of July 2017, State reported that the U.S. government had paused most bilateral engagement with the Cuban government while the incoming presidential administration conducted an interagency policy review. However, State noted that during this time the U.S. embassy in Havana produced several analytic cables discussing developments in the Cuban economy. With the release of the administration's National Security Presidential Memorandum "Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba" in June 2017, State reported that it would work to implement this policy and would monitor developments in U.S. engagement with the private sector and Cuban economic trends. As of November 2017, State said that it was consulting with interagency partners on developments impacting the Cuban private sector and that it was working with other U.S. agencies to determine how to most effectively redirect resources away from the Cuban government and towards the private sector as called for in the administration's Cuba policy. However, State also noted that operations at Embassy Havana had been significantly affected by Hurricane Irma and the health attacks against U.S. diplomats in Cuba. According to State, the Secretary of State's September 2017 order for all non-emergency U.S. personnel to depart Cuba had limited the ability of Embassy Havana to report on developments there, but that the department would continue to monitor and report on Cuba's private sector to the greatest extent possible and as resources permitted. As of November 2019, State had shared with GAO reporting it had conducted related to Cuba's economy. GAO is in the process of reviewing this documentation and will be making a final decision about whether State has taken sufficient steps to implement GAO's recommendation.
GAO-17-56, Dec 5, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on the draft report, State concurred with this recommendation and said that it seeks to make the Trafficking in Persons Report as useful as possible to a broad array of stakeholders and will continue its commitment to ensure each narrative better serves this purpose. GAO analyzed State's 2017, 2018, and 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report and found improvements in the explanations in narratives for Tier 1 countries. However, narratives for some Tier 1 countries did not clearly explain their placement, including language that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria and ambiguous language that meant we were unable to determine how State had determined whether certain standards and criteria were met. As of December 2019, GAO is continuing to monitor State's efforts to fully implement the recommendation. GAO will review State's upcoming 2020 Trafficking in Persons Report.
GAO-16-645, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, Education told us that it had awarded three grants that, while not focused on FGM/C, may be used for student safety and health at the U.S. state and local levels. After it evaluates grantees' need for information and resources related to FGM/C, Education will determine its next steps. In addition, Education reported that it continues to participate on the federal interagency workgroup devoted to FGM/C and has dedicated program staff to respond to issues related to FGM/C. Education expects to finalize its written plan by August 2020.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2020 update that it is in the process of determining next steps for certain FGM/C awareness activities that may be included in the written plan it will develop. Education expects that it will finalize its written plan by August 2020, at which point it should also communicate that plan with other federal agencies and stakeholder groups to address our recommendation.
GAO-16-435, Apr 12, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7331
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: State agreed with this recommendation. State acknowledged challenges identifying recipients of equipment across the range of assistance activities, but noted that it would continue to update its systems and procedures to facilitate human rights vetting for recipients of equipment. In April 2017, State reported that it had provided finalized guidance on vetting Egyptian recipients of Foreign Military Financing-funded equipment to Embassy Cairo and that these procedures had been incorporated into a revised version of Embassy Cairo's guide for conducting human rights vetting. At the time, State noted that Embassy Cairo had begun to implement these procedures. However, State subsequently reported that implementation of these procedures lapsed in 2018 due to staff turnover at Embassy Cairo. As of January 2020, State said that it intends to have new standard operating procedures in place for equipment vetting in Egypt later in 2020. In addition, State has not adopted procedures, similar to those in development for Egypt, to be used more broadly in other countries that also receive equipment through the Foreign Military Financing account or through other U.S. assistance programs. As of June 2017, State had added new features to INVEST, its human rights vetting system, to help facilitate vetting of equipment recipients, and published new vetting guidance requiring screening of equipment transfers. However, State has not established global requirements for posts to use the new equipment vetting system features to screen equipment transfers. As of February 2020, State reported that it had developed draft standard operating procedures for conducting equipment vetting globally; however, these procedures are being reviewed internally within the Department and are expected to be finalized later in 2020. We will continue to monitor agency efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-16-37, Nov 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action in response to this recommendation.
GAO-15-183, Jan 30, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: On March 25, 2020, GAO staff met with FDA officials to discuss the status of the recommendation. FDA officials said that they cannot meet the number of foreign inspections required under FSMA due to capacity constraints, and FDA's current strategy for the safety of imported food relies on a "cumulative oversight" approach involving multiple programs (including the Third-Party Certification Program, the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program, and systems recognition), in addition to foreign inspections. FDA officials said that it could be a number of years before these programs are fully implemented and that FDA will provide GAO with more specific status updates on the implementation and monitoring of each of these programs in future responses to this recommendation. Because FDA is still implementing their cumulative oversight approach and has not reported the number of foreign inspections required to ensure imported food safety, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-14-9, Nov 20, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL worked with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2013 and 2014 to consider possible options for easing plan sponsor concerns about the requirement to assess the financial solvency of annuity providers. DOL reported they will continue to work with NAIC, as well as the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and Treasury's Federal Insurance Office as they consider potential regulatory approaches in this area. DOL also worked with the Federal Insurance Office in developing guidance on the selection and monitoring of annuity providers under the current annuity selection safe harbor regulation. In October 2017, Treasury recommended DOL work with Treasury to develop proposals on how establish or certify one or more expert, independent fiduciary entities to assess the long-term financial strength of annuity providers. Plan sponsors could use these assessments as a safe harbor in selecting annuity providers for their plan. As of 2017, DOL continued to cite its other regulatory and guidance priorities as taking precedence. In April 2018, DOL reported that in the development and clearance of the Spring 2018 regulatory agenda, the agency decided to continue to classify this project as a long-term action. We commend DOL's efforts on a more workable safe harbor, but continue to encourage DOL to review alternative approaches taken by other countries, such as their reliance on existing solvency requirements and insurance standards, which can ease the burden on plan sponsors.