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:
Topic: "Government Operations"
GAO-21-77, Oct 20, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
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 Homeland Security
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 Homeland Security
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 Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-21-29, Oct 8, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
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.
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.
GAO-20-699, Sep 25, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-5130
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Security Agency/Central Security Service: Office of the Inspector General
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 Defense: National Security Agency/Central Security Service: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-689, Sep 23, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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 Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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 Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-559, Sep 16, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on a draft of this report, Commerce concurred with the recommendation and indicated it will take steps to implement the recommendation. We will continue to monitor Commerce's progress.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on the draft of the report, HUD said it finalized standard operating procedures for making career SES reassignments, and thus believes it has addressed our recommendation. We will follow up with the department to assess whether its actions fully address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM did not concur with our recommendation. In its comment on a draft of the report, OPM said it relies on federal agencies to comply with provisions governing SES reassignments. OPM further stated that it has chosen not to make reassignments a focus of its enforcement efforts, in light of scarce resources and other mandates OPM is required to meet. However, for reasons discussed in the report, we maintain that OPM should use its oversight authority to ensure agencies' reassignments of SES staff are consistent with requirements. We will continue to monitor OPM's progress.
GAO-20-609, Sep 15, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
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 Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
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 Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
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 Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
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 Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
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 Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
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 Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
- conduct an audit of each facility's compliance with ORR standards on preventing and responding to sexual assault, as required under the Interim Final Rule,
- conduct on-site monitoring visits to each facility at least every 2 years in accordance with ORR policy, and
- report any noncompliance to the facility within 30 days of the site visit, in accordance with ORR policy.
(Recommendation 8).
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Refugee Resettlement
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-575, Sep 10, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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: Internal Revenue Service
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: Internal Revenue Service
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 Commerce: Bureau of the Census
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
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 Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: National Institutes of Health
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-594, Sep 8, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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 Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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 Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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 Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
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 Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-602, Aug 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-560, Aug 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
GAO-20-566, Aug 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3406
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the CFO, including the formulation and financial execution of the budget, planning and performance, risk management, internal control, financial systems, and accounting. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language to specify that the deputy CFO shall assist the agency CFO in the performance of each of the duties of the agency CFO. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
a. The plan should include actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and better linking performance and cost information for decision-making.
b. The plan should be developed in consultation with the CFO Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Data Officer Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, CIGIE, GAO, and other appropriate financial management experts. (Matter for Consideration 3)
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for a government-wide 4-year financial management plan and an annual financial management status report. The plan is to address actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and better linking performance and cost information for decision-making. The plan is to be developed in consultation with the CFO Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Data Officer Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, CIGIE, GAO, and other appropriate financial management experts. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the CFO of each CFO Act agency to prepare, in consultation with financial management and other appropriate experts, an agency plan to implement the 4-year financial management plan prepared by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to achieve and sustain effective financial management in the agency. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the Director of OMB to prepare comprehensive financial management performance-based metrics, which are to be used to evaluate the financial management performance of executive agencies. These metrics are to be included in the government-wide and agency-level financial management plans, and agencies' performance against the metrics are to be reported in annual financial management status reports. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the head of each CFO Act agency to identify key financial management information needed for effective financial management decision-making. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the head of each CFO Act agency to annually assess and separately report on the effectiveness of internal controls of the agency over financial reporting and other key financial management information. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the financial statement auditors of each CFO Act agency to report on their evaluation of internal control over financial reporting and other key financial management information. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
GAO-20-505, Jul 29, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Justice: Bureau of Prisons
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 Justice: Bureau of Prisons
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-592, Jul 22, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-377, Jun 1, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will develop an action plan to address the recommendation to better align its contingency plan with OMB guidance. When we confirm what actions Commerce has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation and and stated that it has begun to take steps to better address OMB guidance on contingency plans. When we confirm what actions DHS has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) partially agreed with the recommendation. IRS agreed with one element of our recommendation to include additional detail in its agency contingency plan and stated that it is in the process of adding procedures for resuming program activities following a government shutdown into its contingency plan. IRS did not agree with the other elements of the recommendation because it believes it has already addressed plans for a potential prolonged shutdown and flexibilities for supervisors if employees are unable to return to work at the end of a shutdown in its contingency plans. We agree that while IRS has included some details on these elements in its plans, we continue to believe that it should provide more detail, such as points in time when the furlough status of an employee may change, how many employees would be affected, and the legal basis for the changes, within its publically available contingency plan to fully address these elements. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts in this area.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has already begun addressing our recommendations on aligning its contingency plan with OMB guidance. When we confirm what actions USTR has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that the International Trade Administration (ITA) has documented its shutdown planning processes and recall processes for furloughed employees during a shutdown. When we confirm what actions ITA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has already begun addressing our recommendations on documenting its shutdown processes. When we confirm what actions USTR has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation and stated that Customs and Border Protection plans to analyze existing systems to determine which is best suited to track and document employee work during a government shutdown and will ensure that the chosen system is available should a future shutdown occur. When we confirm what actions CBP has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with the recommendation but stated that because Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not have systems capable of efficiently restoring physical access for furloughed employees, it would have to reinstate employee access individually and the cost would be substantial. DHS stated that CBP plans to update procedures to ensure more comprehensive workspace access guidance for furloughed employees. We continue to believe that physical access controls are important during shutdowns in order to prevent misuse of government resources. We encourage CBP to improve their systems to be able to efficiently implement such controls and will monitor CBP's efforts going forward.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with this recommendation. IRS stated that it believes that it has effective controls in place to manage physical workspace access during a shutdown. In addition, IRS said that it believes that implementing additional access controls do not justify the corresponding resource investments. We continue to believe that IRS should improve its access controls, which currently rely on managers and furlough letters to communicate limits on workspace access. While we recognize the costs of increased access controls, government shutdowns are unique events that require additional access controls in order to prevent potential misuse of government resources and will monitor IRS's efforts to address it.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has made the Executive Office of the President (EOP) aware of the recommendations on developing controls for physical workspace access during a shutdown. We will continue to monitor USTR's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with the recommendation. DHS stated that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) believes that furloughed employees must be able to passively monitor the status of the government shutdown and access important agency communications using DHS-issued electronic devices. Additionally, disabling and reactivating thousands of employee user accounts during a shutdown posed a significant burden. DHS said that CBP plans to update shutdown procedures to clarify allowed use of DHS-issued electronic devices by furloughed employees. We agree that CBP should update procedures on workspace access as suggested, and continue to believe that virtual access controls are important during shutdowns in order to prevent misuse of government resources. We encourage CBP to improve their systems to be able to efficiently implement such controls and will monitor CBP's progress going forward.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with this recommendation. IRS stated that it believes that it has effective controls in place to manage virtual workspace access during a shutdown. In addition, IRS said that it believes that implementing additional access controls do not justify the corresponding resource investments. We continue to believe that IRS should improve its access controls, which currently rely on managers and furlough letters to communicate limits on workspace access. While we recognize the costs of increased access controls, government shutdowns are unique events that require additional access controls in order to prevent potential misuse of government resources and will monitor IRS's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that the International Trade Administration (ITA) has established and documented internal controls to limit virtual workspace access to excepted or exempt employees during a government shutdown. When we confirm what actions ITA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has made the Executive Office of the President (EOP) aware of the recommendations on developing controls for virtual workspace access during a shutdown. We will continue to monitor USTR's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-20-436, May 28, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Personnel Management: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-385, May 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-322, Apr 23, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-414R, Apr 9, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6888
Agency: Smithsonian Institution
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Smithsonian Institution
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Smithsonian Institution
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-155, Apr 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
GAO-20-361, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In June 2020, GSA said the agency would validate system data through regional and broker outreach and fully utilize validated system data to manage the broker program. The agency also said it will develop a quality control plan and follow-up on outcomes. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Although GSA initially did not concur with this recommendation, the agency stated in June 2020 that it agrees with the recommendation and will take steps to implement it. Specifically, GSA plans to revise the broker performance standards and document broker effectiveness through lease cost avoidance, timely lease replacement, and earned commission credits. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
GAO-20-243, Feb 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, USDA officials agreed with our recommendation and stated that the department is evaluating options for the development of performance metrics and inclusion of these metrics and related information as part of the regular and recurring reviews by the department's Deputy Secretary who is identified as the Chief Operating Officer.
GAO-20-267, Feb 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. Specifically, in March 2020 CISA finalized its operations plan for the 2020 elections. CISA's operations plan addresses one of the 13 objectives and key actions from the strategic plan -- monitor threat activity. While CISA's operations plan is to supplement the agency's strategy, the plan does not fully address any of the four lines of effort and the other 12 objectives outlined in the strategic plan. When examining the key actions for the remaining 12 objectives in the strategic plan, we were only able to confirm that 10 of the 27 key actions called for in those strategic plan objectives were fully addressed. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. We reported in February 2020 that CISA's strategic plan had only addressed three challenges from its external lessons learned review. Subsequently, CISA addressed two additional challenges in its operations plan, which was finalized in March 2020, and its election infrastructure subsector specific plan, which was updated in March 2020. CISA's plans addressed challenges regarding the agency's role in sharing and collecting intelligence across the election community and facilitating industry-wide vulnerability disclosures. However, CISA has not documented how the agency intends to address other identified challenges and how it will incorporate remedial actions into the agency's 2020 planning. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
GAO-20-135, Feb 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9847
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: GSA has taken steps to address this recommendation. GSA revised certain data elements' definitions in 2020 and incorporated them into the 2020 FRPP data dictionary to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the data reported to FRPP. In addition, the Federal Real Property Council established a data governance working group that meets regularly to address challenges to reliable and complete data in the FRPP. In September 2020, that group committed to developing an action plan to outline the steps to improve the location information in FRPP that we identified in February 2020. If these efforts succeed, GAO will close this recommendation as implemented.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA has taken steps to address this recommendation. The Federal Real Property Council established a data governance working group that meets regularly to address challenges to reliable and complete data in the FRPP. In September 2020, GSA described step that the working group has taken to make V&V anomaly categories better target incorrect data. GSA is currently assessing these actions.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA staff said that the agency now agrees with this recommendation and in an September 2020 meeting said that GSA staff were working with relevant agencies to address it. GAO will continue to monitor their progress.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation and in an September 2020 meeting said that GSA staff were working with relevant agencies to address it. GAO will continue to monitor their progress.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2020, GAO staff met with GSA and Interagency Security Committee officials. The officials explained that they had had discussions to determine what installations would be considered secure installations and were considering what changes to make to the data. GAO will continue to monitor their actions. In September 2020, GSA confirmed that the Federal Real Property Council was working on the issue.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation and in an September 2020 meeting said that GSA staff summarized the actions the agency has taken to link all of the real property data sources. GAO is currently assessing the actions.
GAO-20-66R, Feb 2, 2020
Phone: (202)512-6912
Agency: Federal Election Commission
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 Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-140, Jan 17, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: United States Postal Service
Status: Open
Comments: USPS accepted this recommendation and said, in July 2020, that it was developing internal guidance for cost savings estimates to ensure appropriate factors are considered when evaluating changes to employee compensation. USPS estimates that this guidance will be complete by October 31, 2020.
GAO-20-222, Dec 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they will be implementing a policy to ensure that project planning steps, including a schedule of tasks, will be included and documented for future IT projects.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they have hired a contractor to assist with various risk management activities related to OCWR's permanent records retention program, including identifying and assessing risks and developing policies and procedures to address any risks.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they are reassessing desired performance results, developing new performance measures to monitor progress towards those results, and will clearly report OCWR's progress in future annual reports.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. According to OCWR officials, they are working with congressional oversight committees and covered legislative branch offices to obtain data through surveys or other methods that will enable them to evaluate the effectiveness and coverage of OCWR's education and outreach efforts.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they intend to revise the agency's strategic plan, including integrating IT planning and implementation into the strategic planning process, after they gain more experience with the new procedures required by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) Reform Act of 2018.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials reported that they hired a contractor to better incorporate key management practices, such as developing strategies for recruiting and retaining staff with mission-critical skills, into OCWR's human capital plan and strategic planning process.
GAO-20-228, Dec 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it had published on its website draft guidance in response to the Federal Personal Property Management Act of 2018. In addition, GSA identified several actions it planned to take in the coming months, such as publishing a comprehensive plan and timelines to address GAO's recommendation, publishing a request for information in the Federal Register to seek comments and suggestions, and engaging additional subject matter experts and related associations and standards group to improve upon the draft guidance. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-101, Dec 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update their annual personal property reporting requirements. DOE anticipates having this recommendation implemented by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, DOL indicated in its 180-day letter that they concurred with the recommendation, and have taken steps to improve the monitoring and oversight of Job Corps Property. This includes modifying the GSAXcess approval process by elevating review of all GSAXcess requests made by Job Corps Centers to DOL's Employment Training Administration's (ETA) national office. ETA is also working with DOL's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) to develop a process for GSAXcess review that includes identifying approval levels for each category of property, identifying categories of property requiring additional review and approvals, and coordinating and streamlining access request procedures. These changes will be reflected in DOL's Office of Job Corps standard operating procedures (SOP), which is expected to be issued at the end of fiscal year 2020. DOL expects to provide training to Job Corps staff and Job Corps Centers in support of the SOP that will be provided annually. GAO will continue to monitor DOL's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update internal policies, and provide personal property information on DOE's internal informational website known as Powerpedia. DOE anticipates implementing this recommendation by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation, and has taken steps to revise the Personal Property Reporting Tool (tool). GSA has added relevant authorities to the tool as recently as July 2019, and will continue to contact agencies to ensure relevant authorities are included in the tool. GSA is also evaluating technical updates to the tool to ensure that reporting agencies select an appropriate authority when reporting personal property. GSA plans to complete these actions by July 31, 2020, and inform agencies of these changes in their guidance by the end of fiscal year 2020. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation. GSA will better communicate with agencies to better understand the confusion of reporting on loaned excess property, as reporting requirements are in statute, regulations, and guidance. GSA also plans to review and update by July 31, 2020, relevant regulations and guidance in this area including Federal Management Regulation Bulletin B-27, "Annual Executive Agency Reports on Excess and Exchange/Sale Personal Property." GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-229R, Dec 18, 2019
Phone: (202)512-2834
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: According to DHS, the department was still reviewing its AED regulations in March 2020. Thus, DHS had not completed drafting the regulations or submitted them to the Office of Management and Budget for further review. DHS aims to publish the regulations by July 2020.
GAO-20-181, Dec 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In its 180-day letter to the congressional clients dated March 25, 2020, GSA stated that it would provide additional documentation of invitations to its industry outreach efforts. We will review this information when it is available.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In its 180-day letter to the congressional clients dated March 25, 2020, GSA stated that it would document and assess the feedback received from lessors during its outreach efforts. We will review this information when it is available.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In its 180-day letter to the congressional clients dated March 25, 2020, GSA stated that it would evaluate its simplified lease model and provide documentation of the evaluation's methodology, findings, and recommendations. We will review information related to this evaluation when it is available.
GAO-20-44, Dec 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: We added this recommendation as a priority in our OMB priority recommendation letter in April 2020. We recommended that OMB clarify for agencies how different definitions of a "program" relate to each other in OMB guidance. Clarifying the definitions could help agencies and OMB increase transparency and identify synergies across related laws, such as GPRAMA and the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: We added this recommendation as a priority in our OMB priority recommendation letter in April 2020. OMB should convene trilateral meetings between OMB, relevant agencies, and us for addressing all areas on our High Risk List during each two-year high-risk cycle. Doing so would better position OMB to enhance the leadership commitment needed to make greater progress on high-risk areas. Meetings with senior OMB and agency officials on individual high-risk areas have proven in the past to be helpful to making progress. These meetings would also help OMB meet statutory requirements to conduct portfolio reviews of programs on GAO's high-risk list.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Deputy Director for Management
Status: Open
Comments: Awaiting 180-day letter.
GAO-20-144, Dec 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) partially concurred with this recommendation. On February 6, 2020, GSA stated that it will publish summary schedule and budget results for completed projects on GSA's public-accessible prospectus website. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation, and on February 6, 2020, stated that GSA will publish updated Commissioning Guidance. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation, and on February 6, 2020, stated that GSA will publish program guidance on how and when Post Occupancy Evaluations are conducted and communicate recommendations or lessons learned to future project teams. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
GAO-20-126, Dec 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the office has not provided information on its actions to implement our recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, OMB needs to collect data on the extent to which federal agencies are using cloud services authorized outside of FedRAMP and oversee agencies' compliance with using the program. According to an OMB Associate General Counsel, the agency does not have a mechanism for enforcing agencies' compliance with its guidance on FedRAMP. However, we believe that OMB can and should hold agencies accountable for complying with its policies. By implementing this recommendation, OMB could substantially improve participation in the FedRAMP program, which is intended to standardize security requirements for federal agencies' authorizations of cloud services. We will update the status of this recommendation when OMB provides information on its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status once CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking action to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any additional evidence. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
GAO-20-130, Dec 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and has developed an action plan to implement it. In January 2020, GSA officials told us that GSA will change the method for calculating the average cost per square foot performance measure by now using the actual rent agencies paid to GSA in the calculation. GSA officials also stated that GSA will post this information annually to performance.gov. We will continue to monitor GSA's implementation of these efforts.
GAO-20-75, Nov 8, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of the Treasury
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
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-19, Oct 29, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4431
Agency: Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-17, Oct 23, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that its 2020 LUCA Assessment would identify the impacts, if any, of governments providing overlapping coverage in their submissions to the Bureau. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify metrics on submissions from governments that describe both the participating governments and extent of their overlap in coverage.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would continue to identify improvements to address list-sharing programs so that more addresses submitted by governments are reviewed using in-office methods. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take steps that result in a greater share of addresses submitted by governments being reviewed in-office.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would research appeals-reinstated addresses to determine the factors that led to the initial rejection of those addresses, any reasons for their reinstatement upon appeal, and the enumeration outcomes of those addresses. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to complete and report on this work.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would use existing systems to identify and report the costs of individual address list update-related activities. The Bureau also indicated that it would develop the means for capturing the cost of machine-based methods of updating the address list. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to identify and track costs with sufficient detail to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative efforts it considers and uses to build its address list.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would investigate how best to improve the flow of address data from governments into other census activities, such as research on administrative records or address canvassing. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to establish and demonstrate the use of pathways for data on address collected from governments and their quality to inform the planning of other census activities that rely on address data.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would look for opportunities to allow participants more time to review the address list for their areas, subject to the timing and design of LUCA 2030. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to ensure that governments invited to review addresses are provided sufficient time to review them.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would give participants access to the Bureau's data on hard-to-count areas so that participants could prioritize their address list review efforts. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to demonstrate how it is using its data on hard-to-count areas to improve targeting of outreach to governments, planning other address-improvement activity, and providing feedback to governments.
- Identifying and assessing alternatives and describing corresponding effects on the decennial census.
- Reporting out on the assessment of alternatives, including justifications.
- Developing legislative proposals, as appropriate, for any changes needed to LUCA and address data in order to implement preferred alternatives. (Recommendation 8)
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In its April 2020 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it would reach out to stakeholders in the Summer of 2022 to discuss reexamining LUCA and other address frame initiatives. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to carryout a reexamination with stakeholders on the issues identified in our report as well as identify and report on alternatives as well as legislative proposals as may be appropriate.
GAO-19-643, Sep 25, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM agreed with our recommendation and stated it intends to revise its policy and develop a plan to complete required facility security assessments. As of November 2019, BLM had not yet completed its plan.
Agency: Department of the Interior: National Park Service
Status: Open
Comments: Park Service agreed with our recommendation and cited its efforts to develop a plan that includes training and tools so that park unit staff can conduct the required assessments. As of November 2019, Park Service had not yet completed its plan.
Agency: Department of the Interior: National Park Service
Status: Open
Comments: Park Service agreed with our recommendation to update its facility security assessment methodology to comply with requirements in the ISC Standard. As of November 2019, Park Service had not yet updated its methodology.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM agreed with our recommendation and said it would revise its policy and develop a facility security assessment methodology that complies with requirements in the ISC Standard. As of November 2019, BLM had not yet developed its methodology.
Agency: Department of the Interior: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Status: Open
Comments: FWS agreed with our recommendation and cited its efforts to develop a facility security assessment methodology that complies with requirements in the ISC Standard. As of November 2019, FWS had not yet developed its methodology.
GAO-19-592, Sep 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
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 Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
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 Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
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 Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
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 Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
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 Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
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 Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-529, Aug 1, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-5130
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that it held virtual listening session in early fiscal year 2020 with Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program managers and principal investigators to inform the development of meaningful performance measures and reporting criteria. ODNI noted that the criteria was collected using standardized, repeatable processes to ensure both accuracy and completeness during site visits and performance reviews for active grant recipients. ODNI further noted that it plans to integrate the criteria from the listening sessions into the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that it held virtual listening session in early fiscal year 2020 with Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program managers and principal investigators to inform the development of meaningful performance measures and reporting criteria. ODNI noted that the criteria was collected using standardized, repeatable processes to ensure both accuracy and completeness during site visits and performance reviews for active grant recipients. ODNI further noted that it plans to integrate the criteria from the listening sessions into the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that was in the process of developing an engagement strategy for the reintegration of Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) legacy schools to ensure prior investments are capitalized on and to maximize outreach efforts. ODNI also noted that it is routinely leveraging multiple interagency IC-wide working groups to engage with IC elements and stakeholders to increase its understanding of barriers to engaging with IC CAE, as well as to develop a community-wide understanding of the benefits associated with engagement. ODNI plans to include the results in the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, and noted that it will routinely update these efforts to ensure best practices are being implemented. The ODNI stated that it will use this ongoing process and dialogue to assess and seek to address such barriers and to improve ongoing IC element participation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its March 2020 response, ODNI noted that it was leveraging multiple interagency forums in an effort to improve IC element participation in the IC CAE program. ODNI also noted that it would and encourage the standardization and use of common practices by leveraging IC CAE schools for recruitment and hiring within diverse communities. Together, ODNI noted that it will use input from these efforts to shape a collaborative way ahead for increased and improved IC engagement based on community roles and responsibilities. These efforts will also be integrated into the program's Strategic Implementation Plan, which is expected to be completed in late 2021 and will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE institutions and stakeholders. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-19-500, Jul 2, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA agreed with this recommendation. In September 2019, GSA told us that it will set up a cross functional team with officials from the Public Building Service offices of Acquisitions and Design and Construction, and the GSA Office of Government-wide Policy, to develop a strategic plan to address the recommendation. In July 2020, GSA told us that the final action step for this recommendation was due to be completed on August 31, 2020. We will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation as we receive more information on steps taken.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In July 2020, DOD officials told us that it has developed a corrective action plan to address the recommendation, which is estimated to be completed at the end of August 2020. We will continue to monitor progress once we receive the corrective action plan.
GAO-19-483, Jun 26, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM concurred with the recommendation. In December 2019, BLM indicated that it will develop and issue policy for standard posting requirements regarding public comments and associated identity information as well as duplicative comments which will be available on BLM's website. BLM officials estimate that this will be completed in March 2020. Until these items are completed, our recommendation to BLM remains open.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services stated that CMS already has policies for standard posting requirements, and noted that they would update their policy and communicate it on the CMS website. However, while CMS provided us with an excerpt of the updated language, as written, it does not include information about how the agency posts duplicate comments. Further, CMS did not provide us with this policy, and our review of the website does not indicate any changes have been made. HHS stated it would provide additional follow up actions by 7/23/2020. Given that we found significant variation in the way that CMS posts comments, even within a single docket, we continue to believe that it is important for CMS to develop and implement a standard policy for posting duplicate comments and their identity information, in addition to communicating this policy to the public on the CMS website.
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: CFPB concurred with the recommendation. In December 2019, CFPB indicated that it will develop new language for consumerfinance.gov to better explain the Bureau's "post all" policy, and any exceptions to it. Additionally, CFPB is finalizing internal procedures for posting comments. Until these items are completed, our recommendation to CFPB remains open.
1. create and implement a policy for standard posting requirements regarding comments and their identity information, particularly for duplicate comments;
2. clearly communicate this policy to the public on the EBSA website; and
3. evaluate the duplicative practice of replicating rulemaking dockets on the EBSA website, to either discontinue the practice or include a reference to Regulations.gov and explanation of how the pages relate to one another. (Recommendation 4)
Agency: Department of Labor: Employee Benefits Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: EBSA concurred with the recommendation. In September 2019, EBSA stated that it will develop a written policy regarding posting of comments, including that of duplicate comments. This information will be available on their website. Additionally, EBSA will post a reference to Regulations.gov as part of each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) webpage that includes public comments together with an explanation of its relation to Regulations.gov as a means to access public comments on EBSA's rulemaking initiatives. EBSA officials did not provide a date by which these actions will be implemented. Additionally, while EBSA noted that internal and external users prefer the agency's current practice of replicating rulemaking dockets, the agency did not provide evidence that a formal evaluation had been conducted, and did not identify plans to do so. As a result, at this time our recommendation to EBSA remains open.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA concurred with the recommendation. In January 2020, EPA indicated that it will finalize its Docket Center's Document Processing Standard Operating Procedure as well as its website. This update will include information detailing when all duplicate comments are posted to Regulations.gov and when just one representative sample of a duplicate comment is posted. EPA officials estimate that this will be completed in February 2020. Until these items are completed, our recommendation to EPA remains open.
Agency: Department of the Interior: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Status: Open
Comments: FWS concurred with the recommendation. In December 2019, FWS stated that it will update its service manual to include all standard posting requirements regarding public comments and their identity information. Additionally, FWS will include a statement on the FWS' website to inform the public about posting of public comments and identity information to regulations.gov. FWS officials estimate that this will be completed in June 2020. Until these items are completed, our recommendation to FWS remains open.
Agency: Department of Labor: Wage and Hour Division
Status: Open
Comments: WHD concurred with the recommendation. In August 2019, WHD indicated that it will add text to each webpage for any rulemaking that invites public comments which states that any personal information included in the comments (including duplicate) will be posted to Regulations.gov without change. However, the text provided by officials does not explain WHD's policy of posting duplicate comments as a group under a single document ID, and therefore does not clearly communicate the agency's posting practices to the public. As a result, at this time our recommendation to WHD remains open.
GAO-19-405, Jun 3, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of May 2020, the Bureau's program risk registers included a clear indication of the status of mitigation plans; however, the Bureau's portfolio risk register did not, without which there was not a clear indication of which portfolio risk mitigation plans had been approved by management. As of August 2020, the Bureau's portfolio risk register also included a clear indication of mitigation plan status. At that time, we reviewed the Bureau's program and portfolio risk registers to determine whether the Bureau had developed and obtained management approval of mitigation and contingency plans for all risks that required them. We found six risks that met the Bureau's requirements for a contingency plan but did not have an approved contingency plan in place. We notified the Bureau and asked them to ensure that approved mitigation and contingency plans were in place for all risks that required them. We will continue to monitor the Bureau's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, the Bureau updated its decennial risk management plan and, in doing so, implemented this recommendation for six of the seven key attributes we identified. The missing attribute was monitoring plans: a description in each mitigation and contingency plan of how the agency will monitor the risk response-with performance measures and milestones, where appropriate-to help track whether the plan is working as intended. According to Bureau officials, rather than requiring this attribute, they instead noted it as a lesson learned for the 2030 Census and documented it in their knowledge management tool. In August 2020, we requested documentation of these actions. Once received, we will assess whether these actions suffice to close the recommendation.
GAO-19-415, May 22, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019 we reported that the Secret Service had not met the established training target (25 percent of work time) and lacked a plan for achieving it. We therefore recommended that the Director of the Secret Service develop and implement a plan to ensure that special agents assigned to the Presidential Protective Division and the Vice Presidential Protective Division reach annual training targets given current and planned staffing levels. The agency concurred with our recommendation. Towards addressing this recommendation, in October 2019, the Secret Service reported that the Office of Protective Operations is currently soliciting training requirements from each internal operational division, including the Presidential and Vice Presidential Protective Divisions, to determine the appropriate amount of training and associated training hours for each division. They further reported that once reviewed, the training requirements are to inform the agency's revised Human Capital Strategic Plan. The revised Human Capital Strategic Plan is to include an overview of Office of Protective Operations' training requirements and corresponding staffing needs. The Secret Service anticipates a revised Human Capital Strategic Plan to be available by the end of January 2020. The Secret Service's efforts to reevaluate the training requirements and targets are a positive first step. However, Secret Service's actions are not fully consistent with the recommendation. Specifically, in its updated response, the Secret Service stated that training hours for Presidential Protective Division and Vice Presidential Protective Division special agents training will only increase once the agency nears its ultimate staffing target. This is inconsistent with our recommendation to establish a plan to ensure these special agents reach annual training targets given current staffing levels. In the interim, affected special agents may continue to lack training required to prevent security breaches, such as that of September 19, 2019, when an intruder jumped the north fence and entered the White House. We will continue to monitor the Secret Service's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019 we reported that training data collected on the Secret Service's Uniform Division were incomplete and in certain cases unrelated to protection or lacked descriptions to clearly link the training to required skills. Further, the process used to capture the data was not consistently employed and did not include information on how or whether to capture internal on-the-job training instances, or instruction on the type of training to be captured to demonstrate that the training is protection-related training. We therefore recommended that the Director of the Secret Service develop and implement a policy that documents the process for collecting complete Uniformed Division officer training data and establishes the types of information that should be collected. The Secret Service, through DHS, concurred with our recommendation, stating that it would develop rigorous and uniform standards for collecting and reporting training data related to the Uniformed Division branch, and would work to capture additional training information. In response to our recommendation, in October 2019 the Secret Service reported that the Uniformed Division has worked with the Office of Training and Performance and Learning Management System (PALMS) team to capture Uniformed Division training requirements. The requirements are to include the 20 formalized on-the-job training programs for officers assigned to the Uniformed Division's White House, Foreign Missions, and Naval Observatory Branches, or one of the Special Operations Branch specialized units. In addition, the Secret Service stated that approximately 19 micro-training courses (also known as Roll Call Training) are currently captured within PALMS-the Department of Homeland Security's learning management system -and additional formalized on-the-job training programs are being reviewed for inclusion in PALMS. According to the Secret Service, use of PALMS should help ensure that the process for collecting and recording Uniformed Officer training is standardized and monitored. The Secret Service's efforts to capture additional training information in PALMS is a positive development. However, we have not yet observed progress towards the Secret Service's implementation of a policy that documents the process for collecting complete Uniformed Division officer training data and establishes the types of information that should be collected, as we recommended. We will continue to monitor the Secret Service's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-19-217, May 15, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation. OPM stated that it has established initial high-level funding estimates for each of its five key IT initiatives. OPM cited that its ability to implement the modernization plan depends on the availability of funding and coordination with the agency's top leadership. In December 2019, OPM stated that it was evaluating what corrective actions it plans to take. In April 2020, GAO contacted OPM about the status of this recommendation and we are awaiting a response.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation and responded that it measures overtime spending, reviews daily work level in each work unit, and assesses employee productivity in these units. Collecting and reviewing such operational-level data contributes to monitoring efforts; however the recommendation emphasizes the importance of using performance information to better manage operations to align with organizational goals. In April 2020, GAO contacted OPM about the status of this recommendation and we are awaiting a response.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation. OPM agreed to add an explanation about disability retirement eligibility determinations to its public reports. OPM disagreed that reporting data on the range of processing times would be beneficial because, according to OPM, it provides processing information through other means, such as through applicants' online accounts and agency benefit officers. OPM also acknowledged that it already collects and shares such data. In April 2020, GAO contacted OPM about the status of this recommendation and we are awaiting a response.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation. OPM stated that a new case management system could provide better productivity and staffing data with which to assess effectiveness, but is dependent on funding and IT support. In April 2020, GAO contacted OPM about the status of this recommendation and we are awaiting a response.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM concurred with the recommendation. In April 2020, GAO contacted OPM about the status of this recommendation and we are awaiting a response.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation. OPM stated that it will explore using MS Excel spreadsheets and incorporating clearer descriptions of errors and data trends. OPM also stated that collecting disability application error information is not an inexpensive or simple process change. In April 2020, GAO contacted OPM about the status of this recommendation and we are awaiting a response.
GAO-19-299, Apr 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
GAO-19-431T, Apr 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with our recommendation. It provided an action plan in August 2019. We will review the Bureau's progress in addressing this recommendation as part of our ongoing work on the 2020 Census.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with our recommendation. In August 2019, the Bureau stated that it is developing a process for tracking and executing corrective actions identified by governing bodies and external entities. We will review the Bureau's progress in addressing this recommendation as part of our ongoing work on the 2020 Census.
GAO-19-243, Apr 15, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: Army provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-11. We are assessing Army's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-11. We are assessing HHS's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: Army provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing Army's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing the DOE's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing HHS's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and stated it would work with the procurement community to identify potential approaches to draw contracting officers' attention to qualifying federal tax debt information reported by contractors is the System for Award Management under the FAR ? 52.209-5 certification and ? 52.209-11 representation. We will assess these actions after they have been completed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it is reviewing the potential benefits and costs that would result from implementing this recommendation. We will assess these actions after they have been completed.
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill introduced and passed by the House of Representative in the 116th Congress, HR 3702, would permanently authorize the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, HUD said that CPD will provide training to HUD staff regarding the standards for assessing unmet needs and grantee capacity. HUD needs to provide written guidance or other documentation outlining the standards HUD staff must consider when assessing the adequacy of grantees' capacity and unmet needs assessments.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, HUD stated that HUD staff are now required to indicate the basis for their conclusions in the checklist used to review financial controls and all correspondence between grantees and HUD staff regarding revisions to the financial processes will be provided as part of the certification or grant approval package. We are following up with CPD on the extent to which similar requirements have been developed for reviews of procurement processes, grant management procedures, and capacity and unmet needs assessments. In addition, CPD needs to provide documentation showing that all correspondence between grantees and HUD staff regarding revisions to financial controls, procurement processes, and grant management procedures and capacity and unmet needs assessments are to be part of the grant's approval package.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In November 2019, HUD stated CPD had modified the CDBG-DR risk analysis tool to include pre-award conditions that must be factored into the provision of the grant agreement as well as future monitoring reviews. HUD stills needs to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan for the 2017 grants based on the risk assessments conducted using this revised tool.
GAO-19-284, Mar 22, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
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.
GAO-19-300, Mar 21, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, the Currency Evolution Now to Save Act (the CENTS Act) has been introduced in the Senate. This bill authorizes the Department of the Treasury to prescribe a different composition of materials in the half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, or five-cent coin if such action reduces the overall cost of minting the coin and does not affect (1) the diameter and weight of the coin; or (2) the functionality of the coin, including the electromagnetic signature for accepting it.
GAO-19-22, Mar 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, the Department of Energy plans to clarify and consolidate its consultation policies and practices for consultation with Alaska Native Corporations by June 2021.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, EPA created a draft document, Guiding Principles for Consulting with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations, and issued it for consultation with Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs). The draft guiding principles seek to clarify EPA's consultation and coordination practices with ANCs. Additionally, according to agency officials, an EPA working group is in the process of developing an internal, best practices implementation guide. As of April 2020, EPA expects to finalize these guidance documents in 2020
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
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 Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2019, the Department of Homeland Security provided GAO documentation supporting a planned time frame of March 2020 for developing and updating its consultation policy to implement the statutory requirement to consult with ANCs in response to this recommendation. We plan to close the recommendation after reviewing documentation that the policy has been updated.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Rural Development
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 Defense: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers: Civil Works
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 Interior: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) plans to amend its tribal consultation policy with policies and procedures for communicating with tribes after consultation by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, the Department of Energy indicated that it plans to document policies for communicating about how input from tribal consultation was considered in agency decisions on infrastructure projects by June 2021.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration
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 Homeland Security
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 Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
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 Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-282, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In responding to the report, DOL stated that it concurs with the recommendation. DOL's subagency, OSHA, provided written comments and stated that it generally agreed with GAO's recommendation. On March 3, 2020, DOL staff said the agency will provide an update to its response to this recommendation, along with responses to open recommendations from other GAO reports, in several months.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In a subsequent response to the report, Education stated that it concurred with GAO's recommendation and is considering enhancing its current approach to overseeing compliance with the Stevens Amendment through post-award monitoring activities. On March 9, 2020, an Education Department Official stated that the planned date that work is due to be completed by the applicable program office is 9/30/2020. According to the official, the work will promote consistency across applicable grant programs and enhance their monitoring efforts. The official further stated that Education will develop general monitoring guidance to further check on compliance with the Stevens Amendment for implementation across Education's grantmaking Principal Offices. As a part of monitoring, program offices will be expected to review the Stevens Amendment statutory requirements with grantees and plans to reiterate that grantees are required to disclose for their grant project the percent of the costs financed with federal funds, the federal dollar amount, and the percentage and dollar amount financed by nongovernmental funds when issuing statements, press releases, bid solicitations, and other documents describing their grant project. Education also plans to remind grantees that they must document how the dollar amounts and percentages were calculated in the disclosures and maintain this documentation with their grant file. We will update the action taken in response to this recommendation when further action is confirmed.
GAO-19-249, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, no bills have been introduced related to this matter. When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SBA officials provided documentation, including internal operating procedures for certifying and tracking initial ethics training, to support that they have taken initial steps to address our recommendation. In a letter dated September 13, 2019, SBA's Designated Agency Ethics Official stated that, since February 2019, SBA has used those procedures to document the provision of initial ethics training to political appointees. In that letter, SBA stated that it planned to provide additional documentation to GAO to support this action. When we receive this documentation, we will assess the implementation of SBA;s new procedures to confirm that, in operation, these procedures meet the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of reorganizing the Department's ethics program, including working with the Chief Human Capital Officer to develop and implement strategic workforce planning. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of developing ethics program policies and procedures. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. Once finalized, Interior plans to make ethics program policies and procedures easily accessible to the program staff. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-94, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2660
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.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-19-221, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
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.
GAO-19-178, Jan 17, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 31, 2019, DOD has not updated its policy or instruction.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 31, 2019, DOD has not updated its policy.
GAO-19-87, Jan 3, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will develop updated procedures on the response to tribal inquiries for resources available for self-determination contracts. To fully implement this recommendation, BIA needs to develop updated procedures to respond to tribal inquiries regarding available resources. When we obtain additional information from BIA, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation. When we obtain additional information from BIA, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation and is developing documentation on the process for the disbursement of funds. Once the agency provides additional information regarding its efforts to implement the recommendation, we will evaluate the status of it.
GAO-19-138, Dec 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
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.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, GAO learned that DHS has recently completed the "Physical Access Control System (PACS) Modernization Working Group Charter." This charter was created under the direction of the Co-Chairs of the Federal Chief Information Security Officer Council, Identity, Credentialing and Access Management Subcommittee, and the Program Director of the DHS Interagency Security Committee. The purpose of the PACS Modernization Working Group is to facilitate the implementation and use of the technology and processes related to modernizing electronic-PACS within the federal government, thereby increasing security, coordination, and compliance with national-level policies and standards. GAO is following up with DHS to obtain additional information about this effort and to determine whether it addresses this recommendation.
GAO-19-17, Dec 18, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
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".
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred and has since taken action to address some of our three-part recommendation. For example, VA revised its "Procurement Policy Memorandum 2017-12", on April 9, 2019, to better clarify its existing Buy American Act guidance and highlight key factors contracting staff should consider when determining the applicability of Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. Additionally, in October 2019, VA provided GAO briefing slides for a new training to be offered at the agency's acquisition academy that includes specific instruction pertaining to the use of Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. However, VA has yet to address our recommendation that the agency clarify guidance or provide training to help contracting officers identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information. We plan to keep this recommendation open until VA implements guidance or training of this nature and we are able to assess the extent to which it fully addresses our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and has taken steps to implement it. HHS issued a memorandum in February 2019 requiring all contracting officers as part of their continuous learning program to complete the Buy American Statute course, FAC063, offered by the Federal Acquisition Institute. As of February 2020, about 90 percent of contracting officials had taken the required training. However, due to its COVID-19 Pandemic response activities, HHS stated that all of its contracting officials had not completed the training as intended. HHS also developed checklists and guidance related to the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act. We plan to keep this recommendation open until HHS completes its training initiative.
GAO-19-72, Dec 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: Treasury agreed with the recommendation. As of September 2020, metadata are not available on USAspending.gov.
GAO-19-140, Dec 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its February 2019 action plan, the Bureau indicated having updated the Census Field Supervisor hiring assessment to include questions on supervisory experience, in line with draft documentation provided near the end of our engagement. The Bureau also indicated that, by June 2019, it would communicate as part of supervisor training increased supervisory responsibilities and the need to more actively work with enumerators in answering casework questions. In August 2020, the Bureau informed us that the Bureau would not be altering the information flows for 2020 operations to ensure that census field supervisors receive the same guidance and procedural updates that managers within the area census office receive. To fully implement this recommendation for future fieldwork, the Bureau's planned or other actions will also need to demonstrate how the census field supervisors will have the information they need to carry out their responsibilities to provide supervisory support to enumerators.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In its February 2019 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it plans, by June 2019, to give area census offices (ACOs) the ability to distribute training and informational updates to their local workforces through the Operational Control System. As of January 2020, we are reviewing updated Bureau training documentation on planned mid-operation procedural changes. In April 2020, the Bureau informed us that ACOs would not be empowered during 2020 operations to deliver to their workforces standardized, mid-operation guidance that would be targeted to specific issues being observed locally in the field. Officials noted that they would revisit this issue after 2020 operations have concluded. To fully implement this recommendation for future fieldwork, the Bureau will need to demonstrate the ability of ACOs to identify procedural or other implementation issues encountered locally and develop some form of actionable guidance disseminated systematically to its workforce in near-real time.
GAO-19-14, Dec 7, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
GAO-19-34, Dec 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6722
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.
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.
Phone: (202)512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, GSA indicated it will address this recommendation by updating and enhancing the asbestos module in IRIS to address the issues identified in our report. GSA intends to allocate available funding and complete the changes to IRIS by the end of fiscal year 2019. We will continue to follow-up with GSA about the status of this recommendation.
GAO-19-33, Nov 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA developed and distributed a Standard Operating Procedure that established the Office of Administrative Services as having jurisdiction and program oversight for all internal agency exchange/sale transactions. GSA's Office of Administrative Services had also taken steps to coordinate with other GSA offices to coordinate annual exchange/sale data reporting for the agency. We will continue to monitor GSA's actions in addressing the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, VA's Office of Acquisition and Logistics, in conjunction with Veterans Health Administration's Procurement and Logistics Office, was working on updating the status of two policy notices to amend existing policy to include details on the exchange/sale authority and to collect data on exchange/sale usage within the agency as a basis for reviewing progress and compliance with VA utilization officers. We will continue to monitor the status of VA's actions to address our recommendation.
GAO-19-57, Nov 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
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.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: United States Postal Service
Status: Open
Comments: USPS has completed a cost study to adopt an operational internal control framework. USPS has targeted December 31, 2020, for completion and implementation of this new internal control framework.
GAO-18-672, Sep 27, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-491, Sep 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
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.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our findings and recommendation. In its comment letter, HHS stated that its Office of Grants Policy, Oversight, and Evaluation, within the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Division of Grants, in conjunction with the HHS ReInvent Grants Initiative would be developing and implementing a department-wide financial assistance training and certification program to improve the functional effectiveness of the financial assistance management workforce in the areas of internal controls and risk mitigation. The program is designed to support the professional development of the HHS grants management workforce through both instructor-led and online courses. HHS' ReInvent Grants Management (RGM) staff and GAO held a conference call on November 30th, 2018 to discuss how RGM intended to address the recommendation in GAO-18-491 by developing a generalized framework for the Grants Management Training and Certification (GMTC) program for HHS. An HHS official reported that at its December 2019 quarterly meeting, the HHS Division of Workforce Development (DWD) reported they had in the past quarter: briefed the HHS Executive Committee on Grants Administration Policy (ECGAP) on the DWD mission and goals for training the grants workforce; developed briefing documents and presentations based on a RGM developed framework to develop competencies and outline curriculum of the GMTC program; continued to review and refine the program framework to incorporate DWD mission and goals; drafted the initial policy to further inform the structure and procedures of the GMTC program (e.g. certification levels, required coursework, career development requirements), which should be issued by HHS Office of Grants within Federal Fiscal Year 2020; and collaborated with the HHS Grants Closeout Business Process Reengineering Team to discuss current grants closeout status and how DWD can support grant staff and grant recipient closeout training efforts. Given the ongoing nature of HHS efforts, GAO will continue to monitor progress on a quarterly basis.
GAO-18-609SP, Sep 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
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.
GAO-18-602, Aug 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has taken no action on this matter.
GAO-18-445, Jul 26, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Status: Open
Comments: NIST concurred with this recommendation and, as of May 2020, had taken some steps to implement it. Specifically, NIST provided information indicating it uses multiple information sources to identify potential measurement service gaps. For example, the Associate Director for Laboratory Programs (ADLP) reviews quarterly reports from NIST's laboratory divisions that include information on measurement services. The ADLP may identify measurement service gaps as part of this review. Also, the NIST Measurement Services Council serves the ADLP in an advisory role to identify and address NIST-wide issues related to the quality, relevance, performance, operations, and resources allocated to the health and improvement of NIST measurement services. The Council produces an annual report that addresses the health of NIST's measurement services, including potential changes needed to meet future customer needs. Further, NIST employees may suggest new services through processes established in suborder 5901.01. Many of these efforts also include consideration of potential gaps in NIST's participation in standards development activities. Additionally, NIST Order 5301.00 delegates responsibility to review standards activities and participation across several levels of NIST management. Although these actions may help identify gaps in NIST's participation in standards development activities as well as identify gaps in the measurement services it provides, it is not clear how or whether they fulfill the periodic review of the effectiveness of NIST's participation in documentary standards activities that the ADLP is to conduct under NIST's standards participation policy. We will update our evaluation of NIST's implementation of this recommendation when the agency provides additional information on how the activities described above fulfill the effectiveness review called for by NIST's policy, or provides information documenting that the ADLP has conducted such a review.
GAO-18-519, Jul 18, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9816
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, Treasury issued its fiscal year 2018 agency financial report and included information about all civil monetary penalties within its jurisdiction. However, it did not adjust two civil monetary penalty amounts for inflation and indicated that it planned to complete the regulations to adjust these two amounts for inflation by the end of 2018. In November 2019, Treasury issued its fiscal year 2019 agency financial report and included information about all civil monetary penalties within its jurisdiction. However, it did not adjust one of the two civil monetary penalty amounts for inflation in our finding. As of June 2020, Treasury has not taken the necessary corrective actions to completely address this recommendation.
GAO-18-446, Jul 18, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials told us that they had reviewed data on reverse auctions to determine a root cause of single bidders, and describing the factors that indicate that conducting a reverse auction are appropriate. However, they had not yet provided this information to contracting officials as of July 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials stated that memorandum of understanding with reverse auction providers, including fee information, are distributed to contracting officials. However, as of August 2020, they had not provided us with evidence that they had distributed a memorandum related to the primary reverse auction provider currently used by the Navy.
GAO-18-48, Jul 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM disagreed with this recommendation and cautioned against creating a comprehensive catalog of forms of misconduct because such an approach could expose agencies to the argument that any conduct that was not captured by OPM is not a permissible basis for discipline. In January 2020, OPM stated they are compiling disciplinary data collected from agencies under Executive Order 13839 and anticipate the data will be posted in the near future on OPM.gov.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially agreed with this recommendation. In December 2018, OPM stated that it plans to continue to use promising practices and to issue guidance on progressive discipline and tables of penalties. On July 2, 2019, OPM restated it partially concurs with this recommendation. OPM stated that it issued a guidance memorandum to Federal agencies on October 10, 2018, to aid in the implementation of Executive Order 13839, section 5, Ensuring Integrity of Personnel Files. As of January, 2020, OPM stated they are finalizing compiling disciplinary data collected from agencies under that Executive Order and anticipates it will be posted in the near future on OPM.gov. OPM also stated they are in the process of updating online employee relations training to be made available to human resources practitioners and managers later this year.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially agreed with this recommendation. On September 17, 2019, OPM published a proposed rule pertaining to probationary periods, performance-based actions, and adverse actions. The public comment period for this proposed rule closed on October 17, 2019. As of January 2020, OPM said they received comments from 1,199 individuals. OPM stated that they are reviewing, analyzing, and adjudicating all comments received in order to prepare a final rule later in 2020. Once the final rule is published, OPM stated they will work with the CHCO Council to educate supervisors on the new rule in accordance with Executive Order 13839.
GAO-18-381, Jul 11, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2660
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.
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.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, USDA provided an update on efforts to review its Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) policies and procedures. To ensure that its PRA process is operating effectively, USDA reviewed and updated its internal guidance on preparing information collection request supporting statements, including sections regarding the calculation of respondent burden hour and cost estimates. This updated guidance encourages consultation with potential respondents to help develop these burden estimates. A new PRA consultation checklist directs agency officials to seek input from individuals outside of USDA regarding the agency's burden estimates for an information collection request, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate calculations. The updated guidance specifies that fringe benefits, such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement contributions, should be included in the wage rates used for respondent burden cost estimates. It also clarifies when roundtrip travel time and costs should be included in burden estimates. According to USDA officials, the agency meets with PRA Coordinators to ensure compliance with the updated guidance. These are positive steps toward improving USDA's burden calculation process. However, USDA has not yet provided evidence of a review or revision of its information collection request review process. A review or revision of this process could help USDA better identify errors in burden estimate calculations prior to the final information collection request being sent to OMB and released to the public.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, HHS provided a statement of actions it had taken to address this recommendation. HHS stated that it had added reporting tools to its Common Data Element Repository (CDER) Library that could help improve tracking of information related to HHS's Information Collection Requests. HHS also stated that it had launched daily emails to Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) staff to inform them of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Notices of Action related to Information Collection Requests. Additionally, HHS released an information collection burden calculator tool in the CDER Library to give PRA staff the ability to create burden tables for consistent use across multiple platforms for a single Information Collection Request. According to HHS officials, this tool incorporates both wages and employee benefits in the burden calculations. As of August 2019, HHS's burden calculator tool has been included as a resource on PRA.Digital.gov, a new OMB website that serves as a PRA knowledge base for federal staff. While these are important steps, we are awaiting additional details on how these changes have affected HHS's PRA review process. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress toward addressing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, HHS stated that it continues to leverage consultation mechanisms for input on the burdens imposed by information collections. According to the agency, it plans to increase the use of the eRulemaking program's Federal Docket Management System for all information collections, including non-rule Information Collection Requests. HHS also stated it plans to contact stakeholders to discuss potential information collections and receive burden estimates. As of August 9, 2019, we have not received an update about HHS's actions or plans. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, no relevant legislation has been enacted. We will continue to monitor legislation to see if it addresses our matter for congressional consideration.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In its September 2018 recommendation implementation update, Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the departmental Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Officer has reviewed the Notice templates and checklist with DOT component PRA Officers during monthly PRA meetings and has applied additional scrutiny in the review process. DOT officials stated that the department began an internal review of the Paperwork Reduction Act program operations, policy, and guidance that will include additional aids to support Notice development. Officials reported that they anticipate issuing an updated policy by September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to IRS, agency officials met with representatives of external stakeholder organizations on the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) to seek input on the burden experience of their participants and the communities they represent. As a result of these discussions, the IRPAC has added the burden experience as defined by the PRA as a monthly agenda topic for the 2019 session. As of September 2019, IRS officials reported that the IRPAC has not yet met in 2019. Once we receive documentation confirming this action, we will update the status of the recommendation accordingly.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reported that it continues to standardize the review process by developing a checklist that ensures all required elements are included in the Federal Register notice. Agency officials stated that the agency will complete the development and delivery of training for employees with responsibility for PRA compliance in fiscal year 2019. We will continue to monitor IRS's progress toward completing these actions.
GAO-18-400, Jun 14, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: OSC is revising its practice of granting extensions when the agency provides a plausible explanation for the delay. Instead, OSC will be informing agencies at the outset of the referral that, with few exceptions, extension requests are less likely to be granted. OSC will also be communicating that failure to produce an investigative report within the statutory timeframe will result in notification of the agency's failure to the President and congressional committees under 5 U.S. C. 1213(c) (4). According to OSC, this new practice will be reflected in standard operating procedures for the OSC Disclosure Unit that the agency is currently revising.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: OSC has incorporated explicit language in its acknowledgement letters to whistleblowers that investigations may exceed the statutory timeframe. OSC has also now implemented a standard operating procedure of adhering to the 45-day timeframe for making a substantial likelihood determination under 5 U.S.C. 1213(b). According to OSC, it will be revising its acknowledgement letters to whistleblowers to reflect that OSC expects to make a referral determination within 45 days.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: The Special Counsel convened an Effectiveness and Efficiency Working Group tasked with evaluating every unit's case process activities. The group issued recommendations in the spring of 2018, after which the Special Counsel announced a significant reorganization of OSC in the spring of 2018. Specifically, effective October 1, 2018, OSC created a new Intake Unit and merged the headquarters CEU with the Investigations and Prosecution Division (IPD). According to OSC, it continues to develop standard case processes, including procedures for prioritizing cases, obtaining favorable actions, establishing qualitative and quantitative performance expectations, and reviewing cases.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: The Clerk of OSC has identified and is implementing the following controls and tools needed to ensure closed case files can be tracked and located efficiently: (1) creation and utilization of file plans according to the OSC disposition scheduled for each unit (including inventory of records); (2) creation of an Archives and Records Centers for Information Sharing (ARCIS) account to manage functions related to OSC's Electronic Records Management System (ERMS), including retiring temporary records to the Federal Records Center (FRC), transmitting and tracking records requests to FRC, and transferring permanent records to the National Archives and Records Administration. According to OSC, the Clerk is further establishing policies and procedures, as well as staff training, for records retention, including but not limited to routine evaluations and assessments. OSC employs FOIA Xpress to locate open and closed cases in response to records requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
GAO-18-459, May 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to APHIS officials, the agency developed a timeline and a work plan for an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) to define "bred for use in research" as it applies to birds (as well as to rats and mice) under the Animal Welfare Act and submitted it to USDA officials on July 18, 2019. However, as of October 2019, USDA had not established a date to publish the ANPRM and had instead placed it on the department's long-term regulatory agenda. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts and provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open
Comments: USDA disagreed with this recommendation for several reasons. For example, USDA stated that the absence of an exclusion to the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act or its regulations for federal research located outside of the United States does not create a requirement to collect information about such facilities' use of animals. In October 2019, APHIS officials said the agency continues to disagree with the recommendation. However, we have no reason to believe that such facilities should be excluded under the Act, and we continue to believe that the Administrator of APHIS should instruct federal agencies to report their use of animals in activities covered by the Animal Welfare Act in federal facilities located outside of the United States. We will continue to monitor any actions taken by APHIS to address this recommendation and provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, USDA stated that APHIS agreed to issue a guidance document by December 31, 2018. According to APHIS officials, the agency prepared a draft guidance document entitled "Research Involving Free-Living Wild Species" for departmental review in April 2019. As of October 2019, APHIS was in the process of reviewing comments from the department. We will continue to monitor APHIS and USDA's actions to implement the recommendation.
GAO-18-420, May 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: GSA agreed with the recommendation. GSA officials are in the process of developing a tool to estimate the full operations and maintenance costs of design choices during the planning and design, including how those choices will impact areas discussed in our report, e.g., cleaning, energy, and landscaping costs. This tool is scheduled for completion in 2020. Based on a demonstration from GSA, we believe that upon implementation this tool will address our recommendation by allowing officials to better understand the impact of design choices as they are being made. We will follow up with GSA in later in the year to validate that the tool is operational.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. GSA officials are the process of developing a tool that will include the ability to consider building functionality, e.g., purpose or function of the building and spaces, when estimating operations and maintenance costs during planning and design. This tool is scheduled for completion in July 2020. Based on a demonstration from GSA, we believe that upon implementation this tool will address our recommendation by allowing officials to better understand the impact of functional design choices as they are being made. We will follow up with GSA later in the year to validate that the tool is operational.
GAO-18-415, May 17, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3149
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and set a target date for implementation of October 1, 2023. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees were in discussions related to identifying the parameters and principles for a distribution policy and formula(s) to calculate the distribution prior to preparing the text of a distribution policy, and that representatives from Interior and the State Department would discuss our recommendations with the trust fund committees. According to the Trust Fund Administrator and Interior, the distribution policy was discussed at subsequent trust fund committee meetings, and trust fund representatives met with FSM representatives in January 2019 to discuss the status of the trust fund and future scenarios for its management. GAO observed the FSM trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the trust fund adviser presented a presentation to the committee that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement. However, the FSM compact trust fund committee did not make any decisions regarding steps to address our recommendations. At the meeting, an FSM representative on the FSM compact trust fund committee stated that the FSM's Joint Compact Review and Planning Committee (JCRP) had appointed a chief negotiator and, in light of this appointment, the FSM compact trust fund members would not be taking a position on a distribution policy on behalf of the FSM. The FSM's position is that the distribution policy and other future compact trust fund-related issues should be discussed as part of future negotiations between the FSM and the United States. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that discussions among the trust fund committees and others were ongoing and the fiscal procedures applicable to the trust fund disbursements will be determined prior to October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the FSM trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the trust fund adviser presented a presentation to the committee that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement. However, the FSM compact trust fund committee did not make any decisions regarding steps to address our recommendations. At the meeting, an FSM representative on the FSM compact trust fund committee stated that the FSM's position is that future compact trust fund-related issues should be discussed as part of future negotiations between the FSM and the United States. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees have been discussing options for ensuring that the timing of the calculation of compact trust fund disbursements align with the budget process of the FSM and that, of the options reviewed thus far, using a multi-year rolling average was the favored option. Interior added that the final determination on the timing of the calculation of the trust fund disbursements will be addressed in the distribution policy. Interior set a target date for implementation of the recommendation to develop a distribution policy of October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the FSM trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the trust fund adviser presented a presentation to the committee that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement. However, the FSM compact trust fund committee did not make any decisions regarding steps to address our recommendations. At the meeting, an FSM representative on the FSM compact trust fund committee stated that the FSM's position is that future compact trust fund-related issues should be discussed as part of future negotiations between the FSM and the United States. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and set a target date for implementation of October 1, 2023. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees were in discussions related to identifying the parameters and principles for a distribution policy and formula(s) to calculate the distribution prior to preparing the text of a distribution policy, and that representatives from Interior and the State Department would discuss our recommendations with the trust fund committees. According to the Trust Fund Administrator and Interior, the distribution policy was discussed at subsequent trust fund committee meetings, and trust fund representatives met with RMI representatives in January 2019 to discuss the status of the trust fund and future scenarios for its management. GAO observed the RMI trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the committee received written information from the trust fund adviser that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement, but the scheduled adviser presentation did not occur. At the meeting, an RMI representative on the RMI compact trust fund committee stated that the RMI government has determined that using the original distribution structure, with disbursements in the amount of annual grant assistance and full adjustment for inflation, remains the RMI's position. In addition, any adjustments to the distribution policy and trust fund structure will be made as a result of government to government negotiation. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that discussions among the trust fund committees and others were ongoing and the fiscal procedures applicable to the trust fund disbursements will be determined prior to October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the RMI trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the committee received written information from the trust fund adviser that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement, but the scheduled adviser presentation did not occur. At the meeting, an RMI representative on the RMI compact trust fund committee stated that any adjustments to the distribution policy and trust fund structure will be made as a result of government to government negotiation. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Upon the report's publication, Interior concurred with our report's recommendations and stated that discussions to address them are ongoing within the trust fund committees. In July 2018, Interior stated that the trust fund committees have been discussing options for ensuring that the timing of the calculation of compact trust fund disbursements align with the budget process of the RMI and that, of the options reviewed thus far, using a multi-year rolling average was the favored option. Interior added that the final determination on the timing of the calculation of the trust fund disbursements will be addressed in the distribution policy. Interior set a target date for implementation of the recommendation to develop a distribution policy of October 1, 2023. In February 2019, Interior stated that discussions about policies and controls were frequent and ongoing among Committee members and staffers along with the trust fund manager and investment advisers. GAO observed the RMI trust fund committee's September 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the committee received written information from the trust fund adviser that discussed issues associated with the distribution policy, fiscal procedures, and timing of the calculation of amounts available for disbursement, but the scheduled adviser presentation did not occur. At the meeting, an RMI representative on the RMI compact trust fund committee stated that any adjustments to the distribution policy and trust fund structure will be made as a result of government to government negotiation. The December 2019 trust fund committee meeting again included post-2023 issues on the agenda, but the committee did not take actions at that time.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
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.
GAO-18-266, Apr 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted that would authorize other agencies to assume remaining functions from ONHIR. The report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019 directs ONHIR to continue working on the development of a comprehensive plan for closing ONHIR which includes legal analysis on whether any enacting legislation is required to transfer functions to another agency or organization. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted that would address whether the requirement for the land to be used solely for the benefit of relocatees should continue or regulation of grazing on the New Lands. A committee report accompanying ONHIR's fiscal year 2019 appropriations directs ONHIR to work closely with the tribes, the Office of the Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the closure of ONHIR. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted to address the mandatory trust acquisition provision. A committee report accompanying ONHIR's fiscal year 2019 appropriations directs ONHIR to work closely with the tribes, the Office of the Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the closure of ONHIR. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted to address the mandatory trust acquisition provision. A committee report accompanying ONHIR's fiscal year 2019 appropriations directs ONHIR to work closely with the tribes, the Office of the Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the closure of ONHIR. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: The explanatory statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019 states that the determination that ONHIR's functions have been fully discharged requires development of a comprehensive plan. In October 2018, ONHIR officials stated that they continue to work on transition planning, including helping to develop closeout legislation. We will continue to monitor ONHIR's actions in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, ONHIR officials had developed a schedule of cases that were still eligible to file for federal appeals and reported that the files have been gathered, organized and prepared. Officials also stated that all closed case files that are not subject to an administrative appeal were transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration. We will continue to follow up with ONHIR on the availability of the paper files and the status of efforts to transition its database to another agency upon closure.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, ONHIR officials had produced a report of outstanding warranty complaints, reviewed paper case files for additional information on the status of the complaints, and updated the database accordingly. ONHIR has also developed a report of case files that will need to remain at ONHIR until the warranty period expires. We will continue to follow up to determine how information on contractors' past performance will be maintained.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2018, ONHIR reported that it had updated and maintains a comprehensive inventory that includes property, leases, and surface use agreements on all trust land it administers. Our review of the updated inventory found that not all leases are included, and it is unclear why some properties are listed more than once in the inventory. We will continue to monitor actions ONHIR takes in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, ONHIR stated that it is working to record all current leases with the Department of Interior and plans to identify any needed amendments or assignments once a successor entity is identified.
GAO-18-301, Mar 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is examining the growing arbitration backlog and investigating steps the Board may take to reduce it. In particular, the agency noted that it is discussing proposals with stakeholders and formulating a plan to reduce the backlog in 2018.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that it has taken significant steps to investigate this matter and has established new controls in order to prevent this type of activity in the future, including establishing a relationship with the IG of the National Labor Relations Board to operate a telephone hotline and email address for the reporting of suspected fraud, waste and abuse at NMB.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that the Board is concerned that the 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey revealed a level of dissatisfaction among NMB employees. It plans to conduct an Internal Climate Assessment in 2018 and agency looks forward to the opportunity to better understand and address any employee concerns.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that it is in the process of reviewing the current travel policy, and will revise the policy to be in compliance with federal travel regulations as necessary.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will revise its telework policy and strengthen internal controls, as necessary.
GAO-18-319, Mar 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA has provided GAO with some documents that indicate steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the documents cover topics on workplace and space design. GSA officials said that they are working on a document that focuses on the relationship between space planning and telework that will more directly address this recommendation. The estimated completion date for this document is the end of fiscal year 2020.
GAO-18-183, Mar 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
GAO-18-257, Feb 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
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.
GAO-18-252, Jan 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) indicated that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working to implement the recommendation and plans to complete implementation in July 2020. When we confirm what actions NHTSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) indicated that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working to implement the recommendation and plans to complete implementation in July 2020. When we confirm what actions NHTSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) indicated that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working to implement the recommendation and plans to complete implementation in July 2020. When we confirm what actions NHTSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-29, Dec 12, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI stated that it non-concurred with many of the report's recommendations, but did not state with which recommendations it did not concur. In August 2019, ODNI officials pointed to the Quality Assessment Reporting Tool as the mechanism to measure the quality of background investigations. However, officials also stated that they had not finalized collection of all required data to establish performance measures and, while QART contains a significant data sample size, the data call issued in January 2019 will provide additional information for comparative analysis to develop performance measures for the entire Executive Branch. Officials agreed that since DOD does not use QART, there needed to be ongoing discussions with them to ensure quality standards are met. We will continue to follow-up on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI stated that it non-concurred with many of the report's recommendations, but did not state with which recommendations it did not concur. ODNI officials stated in August 2019 that Trusted Workforce 2.0 is specifically developing timeliness goals which are achievable and based on empirical evidence. We will continue to follow-up on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI stated that it non-concurred with many of the report's recommendations, but did not state with which recommendations it did not concur. In its August 2019 response on the status of this recommendation, ODNI officials stated that the transfer of background investigations from NBIB to DOD will provide an opportunity for the Executive Agents to reassess and address investigative timeliness issues and strengthen management of sensitive information. Moreover, they stated that Trusted Workforce 2.0 will give them the ability to significantly reduce the timelines required to deliver a Secret and Top Secret clearance. We will continue to follow-up on the status of this recommendation.
GAO-18-91, Dec 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2717
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation and said that by August 2018, OPM would (1) track Governmentwide data to establish a baseline of agency use of the seven Title 5 special payment authorities by occupation with a focus on mission-critical occupations; and (2) work with the CHCO Council to determine what changes may be needed to improve the seven authorities' effectiveness. OPM said agencies are in the best position to analyze the extent to which special pay authorities, when used in conjunction with other human resources flexibilities, improve their ability to recruit and retain their employees. However, we noted that by working with the agencies through the CHCO Council, OPM would be better positioned to track government-wide data to analyze the extent to which Title 5 special payment authorities improve employee recruitment and retention. In December 2018, OPM told us that it established a baseline to measure changes over time, on an annual basis, regarding the use of the seven special payment authorities. OPM also stated that it is working with the CHCO Council to administer a survey to obtain agency input on how to improve the authorities' effectiveness. In May 2019, OPM provided documented analyses of the extent agencies use special payment authorities for various occupations, but provided no information on actions taken with the CHCO council as we recommended. More specifically, to fully implement the recommendation OPM needs to work with the CHCO Council to analyze changes in government-wide data and the extent to which the seven special payment authorities are effective. We will update the status of actions to implement this recommendation as OPM provides any documentation responsive to it, as we requested in September 2019 and further coordinated with OPM in June 2020.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM concurred with recommendation and said that by February 2019, it would (1) develop guidance on assessing the effectiveness for the range of Title 5 special payment authorities, and (2) work on any guidance or tools that the CHCO Council identifies that would improve their use of the special payment authorities. After our report was issued in December 2017, OPM also posted new templates on its website to help agencies provide required information and facilitate the request and approval process for waivers of the normal payment limitations on recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. We will update the status of actions to implement this recommendation as OPM provides any documentation responsive to it, as we requested in September 2019 and further coordinated with OPM in June 2020.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM concurred with the recommendation and, in December 2018, provided documented procedures for reviewing agency requests to waive the normal payment limitations on recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives; and for reviewing agency requests for special rates and critical position pay. However, the procedures generally restated the types of information that agencies must submit and did not provide criteria to assess the information supporting requests. For example, the procedures for assessing special rates and critical position pay requests only referred to lists of required information items. Furthermore, the guidance on assessing agency requests to waive the normal payment limitations on recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives did not provide criteria, such as to assess the soundness of the methodology or reliability of underlying data for calculating payment amounts or the sufficiency of prior agency efforts to recruit and retain employees without having to resort to additional pay. Although the procedures documents OPM provided referred to periodic annual reviews of the procedures beginning in May 2019, the documents did not provide information on whether and how such reviews were to consider and identify ways to streamline the procedures. We will update the status of actions to implement this recommendation as OPM provides any additional documentation responsive to it, as we requested in September 2019 and further coordinated with OPM in June 2020.
GAO-18-117, Nov 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI has provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating that information and will update this recommendation once that evaluation is complete.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating this information and once that evaluation is complete, we will update the status.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI stated that with the advent of Trusted Workforce 2.0, discussions are being held about timeliness goals and the periodic reinvestigation model writ large. Once we confirm what actions have been taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating that information and once that evaluation is complete, we will update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-18-138, Nov 8, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 4 priority recommendations
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.
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.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In September 2019, Treasury officials stated that they are working to formalize a process for monitoring agency submissions. This process will include (1) emailing agencies prior to submission deadlines to remind them of the approaching submission deadlines; (2) following up with agencies that do not submit required data by the submission deadline and offering technical assistance as needed; and (3) forwarding a list of non-compliant agencies to OMB. GAO will continue to monitor Treasury's efforts to establish monitoring controls to help ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, Treasury has made progress by disclosing limitations related to unreported spending, among other things. Treasury is planning a major update to the USAspending.gov website to include more information about known data quality issues. Treasury plans to make this update to the website in the coming months and has an internal target date of June 2020 for completion. When completed, this action will help users make more informed decisions about how to interpret and use the data provided on the website.
GAO-18-72, Oct 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an updated Physical Security Policy and Procedures Handbook in January 2020, which includes a series of internal controls and physical security performance measures. We have reviewed the handbook and requested additional information from CBP to determine whether it meets ISC's Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed, initially tested, and deployed a risk assessment methodology that aligns with the Interagency Security Committee Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities. In August and September of 2019, FAA trained some staff on the new methodology, which is being integrated into the facility security reporting system. After resolving any software compatibility issues, completing all necessary testing and training, and issuing the associated security policy, FAA expects to fully implement the methodology by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drafted an updated facility security policy and distributed it for comment in October 2019. It received over 300 comments that are currently being addressed. Once completed, the policy is to incorporate a methodology that fully aligns with the Interagency Security Committee Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities for assessing all undesirable events, considering all three factors of risk, and documenting all deviations from the standard countermeasures. FAA plans to publish the new policy to coincide with the implementation of its risk-assessment methodology by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) update of its facility security policy and its associated databases should help to improve the monitoring and use of physical security information to better assist with risk assessment decision-making. In February 2020, FAA officials said that its facility security reporting system is to be improved with new metrics and executive level reporting. Such improvements are to result in increased program oversight, risk awareness, and mitigation planning. These improvements are to be completed by December 31, 2020 to coincide with full implementation of the components of the risk management framework, such as the risk assessment methodology, personnel training, and policy publication.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is drafting a revised physical-security regulation and manual that is to align with risk management processes, including a tracking and monitoring component. It expects to implement a revised process by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the need to develop and implement a database to track and monitor physical security assessment schedules across all of its components. As a result, USDA plans to request funding in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2021 to design and build such a database. If sufficient funding is secured and development efforts go as planned, the agency anticipates having the database operational by the end of 2021.
GAO-18-8, Oct 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Justice: United States Marshals Service
Status: Open
Comments: USMS concurred with this recommendation and said that it is taking steps to implement it. In August 2018, USMS began providing feedback reports to employees completing the redesigned competency assessment process, which include detailed breakouts of scores by competency. However, these reports do not contain specific feedback, including the employee's readiness for promotion. As of June 2019, USMS is finalizing plans to provide training to employees on the GS-13 and GS-14 competencies. As of August 2020, USMS is building development programs and computer-based courses for each grade level, including GS-13 and GS-14. To fully address this recommendation, USMS should provide information on efforts or plans to provide specific feedback to employees, including on their readiness for promotion, and provide final training plans.
GAO-18-4, Oct 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed with this recommendation and stated it would make any changes to existing guidance that it determines to be necessary as a result of the study. DOJ also outlined its efforts to enforce the protections for voters with disabilities found in federal law. As of October 2019, DOJ indicated that the agency planned to study these issues and has not made any changes to its guidance. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency has completed these efforts.
GAO-17-775, Sep 29, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 2 priority recommendations
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.
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.
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.
GAO-17-720, Sep 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Executive Office of the President
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 14, 2020, the Executive Office of the President has yet to take action on this recommendation.
GAO-17-738, Sep 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services agreed with the recommendation and has developed a template and instructions for quarterly reporting from its divisions. The Department identified some performance measures that it will monitor on a quarterly basis, such as contracts closed on time and total backlog. Due to competing priorities and focus on the COVID-19 response, the Department plans to provide additional steps toward progress at the next reporting cycle.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice agreed with the recommendation and in early fiscal year 2020 enhanced its financial management system to allow the Bureaus to assess whether a contract needs to be closed out. The Department anticipates that the associated guidance, which includes performance measures, will be issued in late summer 2020.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State agreed with the recommendation and is upgrading its system to improve data quality and enable the tracking and sharing of contract closeout information. The enhancements to the contracting system would allow the Department to establish a baseline and develop metrics to measure progress on closing contracts. The Department anticipates that the upgrades and data utilization will continue into fiscal year 2021.
GAO-17-464, Sep 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to, among other things, provide the EIS vendor community with USDA's future vision and requirements in order to enable each vendor to propose optimal solutions; and update the cost benefit analysis of new technologies while reviewing vendor proposals. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As we recommended, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified transition roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets, human capital, and information security, and legal expertise. USDA also developed a communications plan and change management plan for the transition. However, the department has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented change management, nor that it is using configuration management for the transition. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials stated that they are in the process of completing an Independent Government Cost Estimate for the transition. The officials also stated that the department is creating an EIS support organization that will address staffing needs for the transition. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to (1) incorporate mission-critical priorities into USDA's requests for quotes; (2) ensure that critical systems are inventoried and that their respective transition plans ensure continuity of operations; and (3) prioritize mission-critical functions within its transition timeline. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the agency is in the process of developing an inventory of its telecommunications assets and services that are associated with GSA's expiring contracts (e.g., Networx). The officials noted that, as part of the department's transition to EIS, DOL plans to include only limited non-GSA/commercial telecommunications assets and services in its initial transition efforts and inventory. The officials further stated that DOL will not focus on these non-GSA/commercial assets and services until the department completes its transition of assets and services associated with GSA's expiring contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to develop a complete telecommunications inventory, including assets and services associated with both GSA and non-GSA/commercial contracts, and associated maintenance processes for this inventory.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (DOL) provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified certain future telecommunications needs for the department, but DOL did not identify these needs using a complete inventory of its current telecommunications assets and services. In addition, the department demonstrated that it had completed a draft strategic analysis of its telecommunications requirements, but this analysis was not yet finalized and approved. Further, the department has not yet demonstrated that it has aligned its identified telecommunications needs with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other supporting documentation for the transition, including a communications plan. DOL expects to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other documentation that would address this recommendation. The officials expect to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other documentation that would address this recommendation. The officials expect to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred with our recommendation. SEC stated that it plans to establish an EIS planning team comprised of key IT personnel from across the agency to identify, among other things, future needs and areas for improvement, so that SEC can incorporate the results into its transition planning. However, SEC has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress implementing this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to document the roles and responsibilities of key EIS transition team members across the agency. The agency also plans to develop a transition communications plan that includes configuration and change management practices. However, SEC has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress implementing this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In response to our recommendation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provided a high-level budget estimate for the transition. However, it was unclear what costs were included in this estimate and the agency did not provide documentation that justified the costs identified. In addition, SEC has not yet provided an analysis of the staff resources it needs for the transition, nor an analysis of the training needs for the staff assisting with the transition. We will continue to monitor SEC's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has demonstrated that its transition goals and measures align with its mission. In addition, the commission has identified transition risks related to continuity of operations. However, SEC has not yet identified transition risks related to its critical systems, nor identified mission-critical priorities in its transition timeline. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Social Security Administration (SSA) officials stated that the agency is in the process of making significant changes to its procedures and policy for its telecommunications inventory. The officials expect to have a complete inventory of their telecommunications assets and services by 2021. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Social Security Administration (SSA) officials stated that the agency's priority is to transition its telecommunications services on a like-for-like basis, in order to complete the transition before its existing contracts expire, as well as to receive immediate cost savings. Officials also stated that, once SSA has released its EIS solicitations, they plan to analyze the alignment of their future telecommunications needs with the agency's enterprise architecture. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed this analysis. We will continue to monitor SSA's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided documentation demonstrating that it has implemented a change management process, including establishing a change control board that is scheduled to meet on a weekly basis and tracking change requests in its IT Service Management tool. However, SSA has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented configuration management processes for its transition. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement these processes.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified the staff resources and required training for staff working on the transition. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified the funding resources needed for the full transition, nor documented the costs and benefits of transition investments, such as for resource requests related to transition program management staff. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) has identified transition risks related to critical systems and continuity of operations. In addition, SSA officials stated that the agency is in the process of identifying (1) agency-specific measures of success for the transition and (2) mission-critical priorities that need to be incorporated into its transition timeline. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that the department has developed a comprehensive inventory of its telecommunications assets and services, and maintains this inventory on a regular basis. However, as of August 2020, the department has not yet provided documentation of its inventory or the associated maintenance processes. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to complete this inventory and establish a maintenance process for it.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that they conducted an assessment of the department's future telecommunication requirements. According to officials, the results of this analysis were included in an EIS Statement of Work. However, DOT has not demonstrated that it used its complete inventory of existing services to identify its future needs. DOT also stated that it has conducted extensive research to identify areas for optimization and sharing, but did not provide documentation of this research. Further, DOT has not provided evidence that the department has aligned its transition approach with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. We will continue to follow-up with DOT regarding these efforts.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a transition communications plan and identified roles and responsibilities related to legal expertise, the management of assets and human capital. DOT has also provided evidence that they are requiring the use of change management in the transition. However, DOT has not demonstrated that it is applying configuration management processes to DOT's transition efforts. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a transition resource plan that identifies functional roles needed for the transition, such as network engineers and staff to place new telecommunications orders. However, the transition resource plan did not identify the staffing levels needed for each of the functional roles, such as how many network engineers are necessary, and DOT did not provide other documentation that fully identifies these resources needs. In addition, DOT has not yet provided documentation that it has identified the funding needed for the full transition, justified requests for transition resources, or fully analyzed training needs for staff assisting with the transition. We will continue to follow-up on DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) provided evidence that its transition goals and measures align with its mission and that it has identified the risks associated with the EIS transition. However, DOT has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified mission-critical priorities in its transition timeline. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-17-674, Aug 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In response to our recommendation, OPM drafted a retention schedule for its pre-appointment review case files. As of June 2019, according to OPM, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) was in the process of reviewing the draft retention schedule. Once NARA approves and OPM finalizes the schedule, OPM will be better able to maintain complete documentation to justify conversion request decisions and ensure such documentation is available for subsequent review. On July 8, 2020, OPM informed us it is getting closer to fully responding to this recommendation and providing us with appropriate documentation to support is efforts.
GAO-17-614, Aug 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation. OPM has improved its POA&M management system. Using this system, the agency provided, on 08-27-19, milestones showing timely validation of evidence for closing one US-CERT recommendation. However, OPM has not provided support showing timely validation of 16 other US-CERT recommendations that it has closed. OPM needs to provide evidence of timely validation of these 16 completed recommendations, or evidence for the two US-CERT recommendations that remain open, once these two have been closed and validated. As of March 2020, OPM has not yet provided evidence of taking such actions.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM concurred with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM stated that it is working with its learning management system vendor to develop role-based training requirements for its continuous monitoring program, but had not yet targeted an expected completion date. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM needs to issue role-based training requirements for individuals who configure and maintain the deployed continuous diagnostics and mitigation tools. As of March 2020, OPM has not yet provided evidence of taking such actions.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The VA Enterprise Mail Management Program Office revised Directive and Handbook 6340 "Mail Management" to include agency-wide goals and performance measures for mail operations and provided GAO draft versions of both documents in March 2020 that are currently under administration review. According to VA officials, final publication of the revised Directive and Handbook 6340 is estimated to be completed between September and December 2020. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-17-553, Jul 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6244
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-17-597, Jul 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said its Space Acquisition Review Board (SARB) continues to meet periodically and focuses on efficiently using the agency's resources to reduce its real estate footprint and proactively addressing organizational and operational changes. In addition, SSA said its goals, results, and future plans of its real estate strategy are documented in its annual Real Property Efficiency Plan. GAO reviewed SSA's Real Property Efficiency Plan for 2019-2023 (dated September 2018). This plan states that SSA is using two model field offices to test how emerging technologies and service delivery methods could result in reductions to field office space agency-wide. However, it does not include specific plans for adjusting its overall physical footprint in light of expanding remote service delivery. To close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has developed a long-term facility plan--possibly building on its model field office pilot--that links to its strategic goals for service delivery and includes a plan for adjusting its field offices in light of increasing use of and geographic variation in remote service delivery.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it published its consolidated and revised Space Allocation Standards and Space Computation Worksheets in June 2019. It said the revised standards include standardized offices, work stations, and employee personal storage space. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that the revised space allocation standards allow more flexibility for growth in demand and new service delivery methods, or at least that SSA considered incorporating such flexibility.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has identified the most common reasons for technician follow-up on the iClaims system, and based on these reasons has developed a list of potential future enhancements to iClaim. SSA said it prioritized the enhancements based on which would provide the most relief, but is still determining if enhancements can be made. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that SSA has in fact implemented changes to the iClaim system based on the data it collected on reasons for technician follow-up.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has developed performance goals for its SSA Express Icons: 15,000 new visitors annually and 50 new partner sites annually. It also said it continues to work on a dashboard for behavioral based management information data collection for the Icon project. This effort will allow the agency to collect better data regarding customer usage. For GAO to close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has implemented performance measures for its full range of alternative service delivery methods and is collecting related performance information.
GAO-17-622, Jul 20, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, the Bureau had not yet begun its 2030 testing and evaluation planning. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-613, Jul 18, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had developed and documented misconduct policies and procedures for most employees, but not its entire workforce. Specifically, FEMA had not documented misconduct policies and procedures for Surge Capacity Force members, who may augment FEMA's workforce in the event of a catastrophic disaster. As a result, we recommended that FEMA document policies and procedures to address potential Surge Capacity Force misconduct. In September 2017, FEMA officials reported taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, FEMA distributed a memorandum to Federal Coordinating Officers and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators providing guidance on how and to whom to report allegations of misconduct by Surge Capacity Force members, coordination efforts regarding investigations, and how to address the member's duty status during the course of an investigation. FEMA stated that it will further address this recommendation by updating the FEMA Human Capital Plan for the Surge Capacity Force. As of August 2020, FEMA was finalizing a comprehensive Human Capital Guide based on lessons learned during the 2017 disaster season, which will address the Surge Capacity Force. This recommendation will remain open until the Human Capital Guide is completed.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) policies and procedures for Reservist employees did not outline disciplinary options to address misconduct or address the appeals process available for Reservists. As a result, we recommended that FEMA document Reservist disciplinary options and appeals policies and procedures that are currently in practice at the agency. In September 2017, FEMA reported that the Office of Response and Recovery was drafting an addendum to the FEMA Reservist program manual. As of August 2020, FEMA was finalizing a FEMA Reservist Performance Management Directive which will provide agency-wide guidance for Reservist management and discipline. FEMA expects the directive to be completed by November 2020. This recommendation will remain open until the directive is complete.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not regularly conduct trend analysis on misconduct cases, and that the quality of the data restricted the agency's ability to identify and address trends. As a result, we recommended that, once steps were taken to improve the quality of the data, FEMA should conduct routine reporting on employee misconduct trends. As of July 2020, FEMA's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) changed plans on which information system to use for reporting purposes due to cyber security concerns. According to FEMA officials, OPR will be using a DHS enterprise system and the system will be able to generate regular reporting. FEMA anticipates reporting functionality by October 2020. We will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to address the recommendation.
GAO-17-364, May 24, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. As of June 2020, the agency had taken some action, but had not fully implemented it. We will update this recommendation's status as we receive more information.
GAO-17-421, May 24, 2017
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation. In early August 2017, Indian Affairs reported that BIA regional leadership, in collaboration with Indian Affairs' safety office, will develop and publish a safety training plan for all Indian Affairs employees with responsibilities for safety inspections. Additionally, Indian Affairs reported that BIA and BIE will develop and implement a policy to ensure that first-line supervisors monitor and report on whether employees have completed the training requirements. Indian Affairs reported a target date of January 31, 2020 for implementing this recommendation. In May 2018, Indian Affairs reported that it had completed a draft training plan and noted that it had been submitted to management for review. We requested copies of the training plan but as of August 2018, we had not been provided any. In April 2019, Indian Affairs provided documentation that it had developed and implemented a plan to assess all employees' safety training needs. In addition, agency officials reported that Interior's new training management system allows supervisors to track employees' completion of required safety training courses. However, the agency did not provide documentation that senior managers are overseeing employees' compliance with Indian Affairs' safety training requirements. In May 2020, Indian Affairs officials told us that they had developed a process to generate reports on personnel safety training compliance and would provide documentation demonstrating that such reports are shared with management to address training noncompliance. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions in this area.
GAO-17-423, May 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, Interior reported that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) and Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) efforts to coordinate with tribes and the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee (TTPCC) to address this recommendation were progressing. Established by federal regulations, TTPCC is the committee comprised of 24 tribal representatives that provides input and makes recommendations to the BIA and FHWA. According to Interior, TTPCC has identified data elements--14 of 54 data fields--to be considered for removal from NTTFI, and BIA and FHWA have held discussions with tribes concerning a draft plan to remove these identified data elements from NTTFI. Interior reported that tribal groups have posed no objections to the plan and that they anticipate the plan being implemented later in the year. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, Interior reported that a group of tribal users organized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to review the NTTFI and the coding guide was progressing in its efforts to recommend updates to the coding guide. According to Interior, the group has made recommendations to the Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee (TTPCC) on which data elements to remove from the NTTFI and for clarifying guidance in the coding guide, relevant to the data elements proposed to remain in the NTTFI. Interior anticipates that updates to the coding guide based on the group's recommendations will be completed in 2019. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Interior told us that, along with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it has held several meetings with tribal users to identify missing or erroneous data in the NTTFI. For example, the meeting participants identified that data which were formerly but are no longer used in formulas to allocate federal funding to tribes are likely outdated and not useful. Further, recognizing that approximately 70 percent of NTTFI data reflects inventory and condition information of roads owned by non-BIA and non-tribal entities, such as state and local governments, the meeting participants determined that opportunities exist to work with these external entities to monitor data obtained from them to ensure that it is current and accurate for use and display in the NTTFI. As of June 2019, Interior said that, in anticipation of changes to the NTTFI format, its main actions to address this recommendation will be to coordinate with these external entities to monitor the data they provide to NTTFI to ensure it conforms to NTTFI's new format. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019 Interior reported that BIA had developed a data reporting process that incorporates use of a "time-stamp" to indicate when the level of service for a road section is evaluated. Interior said that it anticipates providing guidance on this process to BIA staff, tribes, and others that perform level of service road maintenance assessments so that they can implement the process in 2020. We will continue to monitor efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019 Interior reported that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) had surveyed tribes to determine their capabilities for managing data related to road maintenance costs. Interior further reported that BIA was investigating the use of computer software for tracking road maintenance costs and developing estimates of maintenance needs. Interior said that it expects to complete actions to implement this recommendation in 2020. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In its official comments on our report, Interior said that that it cannot reasonably accomplish this recommendation because, in reference to the tribes which have agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to maintain BIA roads in their area, it conflicts with the intent of federal law and the minimum-reporting requirements when a tribal entity takes over the day-to-day actions and tasks of a program. However, following our report's issuance, Interior told us that its actions to address other recommendations will assist the tribes in developing data on Road Maintenance Program (RMP) funds expended for performed maintenance on BIA roads. In addition, Interior said that tribes have expressed interest in gathering this data. Further, in June 2019, Interior reported that the Tribal-Interior Budget Council had approved a plan for a pilot project in the BIA Great Plains Region to gather data relevant to addressing this recommendation. Even though tribal reporting of this data is voluntary, we continue to believe that by coordinating with affected tribes on developing a process for their self-reporting of RMP funds expended for maintenance, and by implementing such a process for tribes that BIA serves directly, Interior could improve the reporting of maintenance performed on BIA roads and be better positioned to provide Congress with more accurate and complete information on RMP funding decisions. We will continue to monitor actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: At the time of our report, Interior said that it concurred with this recommendation; however, it subsequently changed its position. Interior noted that its tribal and school partners have not requested changes to this formula and that it was therefore not compelled to undertake the rigorous consultation and negotiated rulemaking actions that would be needed to change the formula. As of June 2019, Interior has not acted to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-398, May 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will revise guidance on independent government cost estimates. As of September 2020, despite numerous requests, we still have not received any information on steps HHS has taken to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will revise guidance on independent government cost estimates. As of September 2020, despite numerous requests, we still have not received any information on steps HHS has taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-337, Apr 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Naval Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. In June 2020, we requested information on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm the actions the Navy has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report. As of July 2020, the Army had drafted a memorandum that would delegate the requirements to the investigative services or program office. We will update the status of this recommendation after the Army issues the final memorandum.
GAO-17-208, Apr 18, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
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.
GAO-17-320, Apr 6, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported that, working through the Manufacturing USA interagency team and the National Science and Technology Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, it had revised the Manufacturing USA governance document to include a section defining roles related to facilitating information sharing for agencies who are not sponsoring Manufacturing USA institutes. We are seeking clarification from NIST on which non-sponsoring agencies are covered by the new section. We will revisit the status of this recommendation once we receive clarification.
GAO-17-240, Mar 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology Policy
Status: Open
Comments: In October, 2018, the Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, Committee on Technology of the National Science Technology Council released a Strategy for American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing. This strategy provided some information on progress toward achieving the objectives of the prior National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing; however, it is unclear what information is to be collected from agencies and likewise how progress toward achieving the goals of the current strategy will be measured. We will update the status of this recommendation when the Office of Science and Technology Policy identifies the information to be collected from federal agencies and how this information will be used to assess progress in achieving the current goals, objectives, and priorities.
GAO-17-90, Mar 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: CNCS has been working since September 2018 to review and update its risk assessment process. The CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation has developed a methodology to determine the appropriate score and weight for the assessment indicators. It plans to fully implement the new risk assessment process in fiscal year 2020. To close this recommendation, CNCS will need to show documentation for how it selected and weighted revised indicators to cover identifiable risks, and how the revised scoring system identifies the riskiest grants.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, CNCS stated that revisions to the agency-wide risk assessment instrument include indicators to address prime grantee monitoring and oversight of subrecipients. CNCS established a new Office of Monitoring in 2019, which will be responsible for reviewing and improving monitoring protocols, including those related to subrecipient activities. Enhanced monitoring protocols will be implemented as part of its fiscal year 2020 monitoring plan. To help close this recommendation, CNCS will need to show how it has expanded information it collects pertaining to subrecipients, and how its monitoring efforts reflect this.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, CNCS reported that the new Office of Monitoring supports the agency's May 2018 Transformation and Sustainability Plan goals related to monitoring and evaluating results. This office is developing a monitoring strategy to align with the agency's IT system improvements, and will allow for reporting and data to support a systematic evaluation of grant monitoring results. To help close this recommendation, CNCS will need to show how the agency has used outcomes and findings from its grant monitoring activities to help guide improvements to these activities.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, CNCS is in the process of realigning its grant management and monitoring functions. The agency plans to document critical competencies for grant management and monitoring roles and establish a training program to strengthen its grant monitoring performance. By December 2019, CNCS plans to implement a comprehensive orientation curriculum and a more effective onboarding procedure, updated staff support training materials, among other changes to its training efforts. To close this recommendation, CNCS will need to determine which competencies are critical for grant monitoring, and show how the competencies are linked with the agency's training planning processes and agency goals.
GAO-17-247, Feb 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that the department currently offers interactive manager/supervisor telework training to all supervisors, the completion of which is documented in the manager and supervisor training records. However, officials said this training was strongly encouraged but not required. In fiscal year 2019, telework training was added as a mandatory course for all managers and supervisors, the completion of which is documented in manager and supervisor training records and reported to departmental leadership. As of August 2020, the Department of Labor was developing and testing a telework tracking application system that will require and document completion of manager/supervisor telework training through the Department's internal learning development system before a supervisor can use the system to approve telework agreements. The Department of Labor anticipates the system will be ready for implementation in FY 2021. We will continue to follow up with the Department of Labor on this and will provide an update when available.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that the current policy requires supervisors to conduct an annual review of telework agreements to ensure the arrangement is current and the needs of the agency are being met. In October 2019, Department of Labor officials stated the department is revising its telework processes to include a defined procedure for managers/supervisors to document and report the annual reviews. As of August 2020, the Department of Labor was developing and testing a telework tracking application system that will require and document annual telework agreement recertification for all telework program participants and their supervisors to ensure a regular review of telework agreements. The Department of Labor anticipates the system will be ready for implementation in FY 2021. When we confirm that Labor has fully completed these actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that it will benchmark best practices used by other federal agencies to explore options for utilizing its existing telework agreement tracking system to facilitate more timely access to telework agreement data. As of October 2019, Labor is developing a telework tracking application to improve access to telework data and the quality of telework data reported by its agencies. It is projected this tracking application will be launched as part of a broader internal web-based collaborative platform in FY 2021. When we confirm that Labor has fully completed these actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated May 16, 2017, the acting director stated that OPM did not agree with the recommendation. While OPM recognizes the importance of data accuracy to effectively evaluate federal telework programs, OPM does not agree that the Telework Enhancement Act imposes any obligation on OPM to allocate significant resources necessary to validate telework data collected from agencies or that a year-over-year comparison of survey data is needed or advantageous to ensuring a reasonable and rigorous data analysis. We agree that OPM should not independently validate agency data, but OPM should take the steps necessary to identify and explain data outliers and limitations. Because OPM is the agency responsible for reporting telework data, OPM should ensure its annual reports to Congress include a clear discussion of data reliability limitations. Following up on data outliers and large year-to-year changes can help OPM identify data errors that could be corrected by agencies and provide OPM with the opportunity to discuss data limitations with agencies. Including such information clearly in the annual telework reports to Congress can make them more useful to Congress and to others. As of January 2020, OPM has not taken action on this recommendation. If we confirm that OPM does take action in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-168, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8612
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2017 we reported that the United States had revised its approach to statistical reporting to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about covered federal government procurement from an "award values" methodology to an actual "cumulative obligations" approach in October 2015. The "cumulative obligations" methodology resulted in a more accurate measure of covered federal procurement, but it introduced a 6-year delay in reporting. We found this reporting delay inconsistent with the 2014 WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) requirement of reporting within 2 years of the end of the reporting period. We recommended that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should, with appropriate experts in Commerce, Office of Management and Budget, and General Services Administration, improve the U.S. methodology for providing covered federal government procurement statistics to the WTO to ensure both accurate and more timely reporting, consistent with GPA requirements--for example, by providing preliminary estimates and updated values of covered federal procurement or by using an alternative methodology that bases measures of covered government procurement on actual annual obligations, if USTR determines that such an approach is consistent with WTO obligations. Following the issuance of our report, in December 2017 USTR reported that they had worked with other agencies to improve their methods. While they decided to continue to report statistics using the "cumulative obligations" methodology they decided to also report "partially reported" (preliminary) statistics to improve the timeliness of U.S. reporting. This preliminary data was to be based on the same data used in the "cumulative obligations" methodology but can be submitted within two years of the end of the reporting period and therefore comply with GPA statistical reporting obligations. USTR submitted preliminary statistics for FY 2015 on November 15, 2017; for FY 2016 on October 31, 2018; and for FY 2017 on October 29, 2019. USTR will later update these statistics to reflect the "final" total value in 2021. GAO will continue to monitor this recommendation until that time.
GAO-17-191, Jan 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In the Bureau's March 2017 action plan, it reported that as the Census Bureau develops enhancements to the procedures and training for enumerators, it will reflect on what it has learned from 2016 Census Test experiences as well as from recommendations such as this. It reported a target completion of December 2018, following completion and analyses of the nonresponse follow-up operation for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. In January 2018, Bureau officials told us that leveraging enumerator collected information on the best time to conduct an interview would not be a part of questionnaire design's functionality for 2020 and will most likely rely on the system optimizer to determine the best time to contact a household. Bureau officials indicated they may push this recommendation out to 2030. During the 2018 Test, we continued to observe that enumerator notes were not being systematically reviewed by supervisors and managers, such that information such as office hours for apartment managers among other information we reported on was not being used by the operation. In June 2019, the Bureau informed us that it had added functionality to the enumerator device for enumerators to alert supervisors of case notes of "high importance" and was revising training to explain its use. Additionally, in December 2019, the Bureau shared documentation that reiterated the importance of enumerators reviewing prior case notes but clarified that enumerators should not expect their supervisors to regularly review those case notes. In April 2020, Bureau officials indicated that it was not likely that the Bureau would revise CFS training to systematically review case notes for the 2020 cycle, though we are following up with the Bureau to see if this can be done given the revised census time frames stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. To fully implement this recommendation for 2020 and for future fieldwork, the Bureau needs to make better use of the information collected by enumerators during interview attempts about when to make additional attempts, such as during reported working hours of property managers for large multi-unit structures that house a large number of non-respondents.
GAO-17-105, Jan 24, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA stated that the Office of Labor Management Relations (LMR) revised its policy in December 2016 to include specific directions to human resource offices to begin recording official time in the VA Time and Attendance System (VATAS) once VATAS has been implemented at their respective facilities. The formal concurrence process, which precedes the final publication of the policy, is ongoing. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency provides documentation of the revised policy.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA stated that the Office of Human Resources and Administration is in the process of developing a memo directing facilities to rely on time and attendance records when calculating the amount of official time used at the facility level. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency has provided documentation that they have completed this effort.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA stated that the Office of Labor Management Relations (LMR) will transition from using the LMR Official Time Tracking System to collect and compile data on official time and will coordinate with the Financial Services Center to use VATAS to create a report on the agency-wide use of official time. VA is still in the process of rolling out VATAS and standardizing the input of official time requests within VATAS. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency has demonstrated efforts to use VATAS for capturing the use of official time and producing reports.
GAO-17-110, Nov 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB is finalizing finalized expanded guidance and procedures on coding whistleblower data. MSPB is committed to ensuring that procedures are in place for identifying and using appropriate whistleblower codes; however, MSPB is limited by its various legacy applications with regard to the improvements related to data entry that can be implemented at this time. MSPB currently is in the process of designing new core business applications that will incorporate appropriate data quality, integrity, and accountability measures to further improve its data management practices. Until the new case management system is in production in FY 2020 or early FY 2021, MSPB remains committed to utilizing the resources necessary to ensure the accuracy of its reported data. To achieve this objective, experienced attorneys reviewed, validated, and, where necessary, corrected agency whistleblowing data prior to public release in FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. MSPB is committed to this extra layer of review for FY 2019, and will continue to evaluate how to achieve this objective given other workload and available resources. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB stated that it completed drafting the data integrity study mentioned in our previous response, looking at the current processes and integrity of case-related data as a whole throughout the agency. As explained above and highlighted in MSPB's FY 2018 Annual Report, MSPB's initiative to design and configure new core business applications currently is underway, and the findings in the study are integral to incorporating the appropriate data integrity processes, including quality checks and controls, into these new applications. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
GAO-17-15, Oct 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In fiscal year 2020, the Senate passed S.4104, which included language to address the recommendation. In the context of the Do Not Pay (DNP) working system, the bill, if enacted, would authorize comparison of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) full death file with personally identifiable information reviewed through the working system and would allow redisclosure of such comparison of information to any federal or state agency authorized to use the working system. As of July 15, 2020, the House has not introduced a related bill for fiscal year 2020. Additionally, in February 2020, the administration released its President's 2021 Budget, which proposes legislation to allow the DNP Business Center full access to the SSA full death file. This proposal would include the Department of the Treasury and the SSA working together to determine the most efficient manner to make full death information available for use in preventing improper payment and fraud. We will continue to monitor congressional legislation to address this recommendation. .
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.
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.
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.
GAO-16-680, Aug 31, 2016
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In June 2019, DOD reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had developed a sophisticated risk assessment tool which could potentially be used to both define and assess exceptionally high risk buildings in a cost-effective manner. DOD said that it was in the process of determining the suitability of the tool for use by its components, and potentially other federal government partners. According to DOD, further action to address this recommendation will depend on both a favorable determination of the tool's suitability and the availability of funding to conduct assessments and complete the mitigation actions identified by the assessments. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Phone: (202) 512-6806
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.
GAO-16-548, Jul 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, HHS submitted its action plan to address GAO's recommendations. At that time, HHS stated the agency was reviewing its internal policies and procedures related to the hiring of special government employees not serving on boards to identify policy options that might improve data reliability. In January 2017, the Office of Government Ethics issued its Ethics Program Review of HHS and commented on ongoing and planned efforts by HHS to address challenges associated with identifying Special Government Employees who do not serve on federal advisory committees. Ongoing efforts include internal coordination between the Office of General Counsel-Ethics Division and human resource officials to implement new requirements based on 5 CFR part 2638. We are following up with HHS to determine the status of actions on the new requirements. As of September 2019, HHS has not responded to our requests for an update on their actions to respond to this recommendation. In May 2020, HHS noted that its Office of Human Resources has been responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore has not been able to provide an update on this recommendation. HHS expects to provide us with an update in July 2020. We contacted the agency for an update and are awaiting a response as of September 1, 2020.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. DOE has developed a plan to analyze tools utilized by site contractors to determine the viability of using the data to monitor the influence of work environment on employees' willingness to raise safety concerns. As of March 2020, DOE had completed assessments of safety culture sustainment tools and drafted a report. According to officials, the draft report is undergoing final review and officials anticipate issuing the report by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. DOE issued its revised order on the employee concerns program (ECP) in January 2019. However, that order did not address all three issues raised in our recommendation. Specifically, the order states that it is a best practice for contractor ECP managers to report to a designated executive in the contractor management chain, but does not include information on concerns of independence. Additionally, there is instruction that ECP managers must assess programs and how often, but there is not specific criteria for overseeing and evaluating effectiveness or independence. As of May 2020, we are continuing to discuss these issues with DOE officials.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE concurred in principle with the recommendation. In response, the Office of Hearings and Appeals conducted a review of the Part 708 program that addressed three of the four items identified in the recommendation. As of May 2020, we are continuing to work with DOE on whether or how it plans to assess the contractors that have adopted the pilot program and the date they did so.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. In January 2018, DOE issued a revision to DOE Policy 450.4A. The revised policy states that organizations should foster a culture that allows employees to "feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation...and supporting a questioning attitude concerning safety by all employees." However, the policy does not define the appropriate steps DOE should take to hold contractors accountable for creating a chilled work environment. As of May 2020, we are continuing to work with DOE to determine whether they plan to make additional changes to the policy to address our recommendation.
GAO-16-628, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. Specifically, we reported that the Bureau should ensure that its budget for contingencies for the 2020 Census reflect an accurate accounting of risk and uncertainty. In doing this, the Bureau should improve controls over risk and uncertainty in the cost estimate process, and institutionalize these controls by providing clear methods for their use. In July 2018, we completed a review of documentation to support the updated October 2017 cost estimate and found that the Bureau performed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on the estimate and appropriately added funding into the cost estimate to reflect inherent uncertainty and to account for specific risks. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to link specific risks to funds set aside in the $1.2 billion general risk contingency fund. Therefore, as of January 2020, this recommendation remains valid and should be addressed: that the Bureau properly account for risk in the 2020 Census cost estimate.
GAO-16-325, Apr 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the department was in the process of addressing it. Specifically, a HHS official reported in August 2020 that the department had created a team to address cloud computing best practices and intended to finalize guidance on SLA key practices by June 2021. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department was in the process of addressing the recommendation. Specifically, a Treasury official reported that the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer was working with the Treasury Senior Procurement Executive to incorporate the key practices identified in our report into Treasury acquisition policy, which was expected to be completed by January 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the department was in the process of addressing it. In August 2020, a VA official reported that the department's Office of Information Technology was working to re-write existing SLA documentation following a review from the Office of Inspector General but did not provide a date when the guidance would be finalized. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-16-305, Mar 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that its Joint Committee on Biorisk Management Policy (JCBMP) would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include department-wide incident reporting requirements and time frames. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. Officials stated that updates to component agency policies would be completed shortly after issuance of the departmental policy. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing outdated departmental policies. In addition, officials stated that APHIS reviews and updates agency policies every 3-5 years, and that this schedule will be reflected in the updated departmental policy. In October 2019, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) updated its agency policy for its institutional biological safety committee, the entity responsible for ensuring biosafety in its laboratories. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that revisions to the departmental, APHIS, and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) policies should be completed by December 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee efforts to collect and analyze laboratory inspection results and incident reports and share these reports and critical analyses with USDA senior leadership on an annual basis. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that revisions to its departmental policy-which would reflect the JCBMP's role in analyzing inspection results and incident reports, identifying potential trends, and sharing lessons learned-should be completed by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include requirements for routine reporting of inspection results to senior USDA officials. In July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include requirements for routine reporting of laboratory incidents to senior USDA officials. In July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. Officials stated that updates to component agency policies would be completed shortly after issuance of the departmental policy. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In June 2018, DOD stated that it had completed evaluation of existing DOD and service level guidance related to inventory control. DOD also stated that it will continue to analyze the adequacy of existing policy and the need to expand that policy across the DOD Lab Enterprise as the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 is finalized for publication. As of August 2019, DoD said the draft DoDM 6055.18 was still in review and the agency estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated that it had updated the Air Force policy (AF Instruction 10-2611-0) as of January 19, 2017; this document updates the biological safety standards used in AF labs and implements the draft update to Department of Defense Manual 6055.18M: Safety Standards for Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. As of July 2019, DOD provided GAO with the updated Army policy AR 190-17; however DOD officials stated that as the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, this recommendation should remain open. DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2019, DOD reported that the Air Force is planning to close its BSAT program by the summer of 2019 and planning was underway to move the Air Force BSAT inventory to another DOD BSAT facility. Additionally, the Army was revising its AR 385-10, which contains biosafety criteria unique to the Army, and estimated the revision would be completed by December 2019. Finally, the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, and DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2019, DOD reported that the Air Force is planning to close its BSAT program by the summer of 2019 and planning was underway to move the Air Force BSAT inventory to another DOD BSAT facility. Additionally, the Army was revising its AR 385-10, which contains biosafety criteria unique to the Army, to include a new mishap classification for biosafety mishaps to effect better reporting and analysis of these mishaps, and estimated the revision would be completed by December 2019. Finally, the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, and DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of June 2018, DOD stated that the draft directive DODD 5101.XXE, which is expected to be published in October 2018, formally designates the Executive Agent Responsible Official for Biosafety and Biosecurity and will establish roles and responsibilities including a role for reporting inspection results. Further, DOD stated that all inspection results of a joint inspection team are provided to the Executive Agent Responsible Official, and that the joint inspection team was established in September 2016. As of September 2019, DOD officials had provided updated documentation regarding this recommendation, and GAO was reviewing these updates.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that both CDC and FDA were working to incorporate incident reporting requirements and time frames into formal agency policies and practices but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In summer 2017, CDC and FDA reported that they were continuing to incorporate incident reporting, which includes all laboratory incidents, accidents, injuries, infections, and near-misses, into formal agency policies. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019 we had not received an update from HHS on the status of CDC's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that CDC plans to revise its policies to include training and inspection requirements for inspections for all high-containment laboratories but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In June 2017, HHS reported that CDC was in the process of revising its formal policies to ensure they included requirements for training and inspections for all of the agency's high-containment laboratories but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In December 2017, HHS reported that CDC's policies were in the initial stages of the clearance process and anticipated they would be finalized in fall 2018. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status of these policies.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that CDC was working with FDA and NIH to establish a process for notifying HHS leadership of inspection results through the department's Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council. HHS did not provide us with an anticipated time frame for implementing this notification practice or when the agencies plan to begin notifying HHS of inspection results. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status NIH's actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that NIH's ongoing practice is to report the results of external inspections to senior agency officials and, in May 2016, developed a standard operating procedure that outlines this reporting process. In March 2017, NIH officials provided assurance that its Division of Occupational Safety and Health provides NIH's intramural governing body with information about NIH's safety performance at least annually; officials further assured that this information includes the overall results of annual inspections (or audits, as NIH calls them) of all NIH laboratories and discussion of the top 10 most report safety infractions for the year. GAO considers NIH to have implemented the recommended action. GAO will close the overall recommendation once FDA has taken equivalent, appropriate action. As of August 2019, FDA reported that the agency began piloting a standardized agency-wide laboratory safety inspection checklist to ensure that all laboratories are inspected rigorously and consistently. As part of the pilot, all laboratories were to be inspected during the first 3 quarters of the calendar year. The agency said it planned to aggregate the results of the inspections, and trends and significant findings would be reported to FDA senior leadership in the fourth quarter of 2019. GAO will continue to monitor FDA's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that its Biosafety and Biosecurity Council was working to establish incident reporting requirements for CDC, FDA, and NIH but did not provide an anticipated completion date. HHS noted that NIH formally adopted a standard operating procedure that lays out the agency's requirements for reporting incidents to senior officials. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status of NIH or CDC actions.
GAO-16-168, Mar 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
GAO-16-175, Feb 25, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: At least two bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress that would change the financial regulatory structure, to some degree, to address fragmented and overlapping regulatory authorities among agencies, as GAO suggested in February 2016. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017 and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. Among other things, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 calls for the federal financial regulatory agencies to implement policies and procedures to minimize the duplication of effort with respect to enforcement actions. For example, it eliminates the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to supervise and examine financial institutions and also eliminates the regulatory and enforcement authority of the agency with respect to unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices by depository institutions. Such actions could help reduce fragmentation and overlap in the financial regulatory structure. In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill, to some extent, may help address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the financial regulatory structure. For example, the bill helps to address fragmentation in insurance oversight by finding that the federal agencies and office involved in insurance regulation should achieve consensus with state insurance regulators when they participate in negotiations on insurance issues before any international forum of financial regulators or supervisors, and create an advisory committee to discuss and report on insurance policy issues including international issues. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they could help to address fragmentation and overlap between the federal financial regulatory agencies and reduce opportunities for inefficiencies in the regulatory process and inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: While some legislative action has been taken that may alter FSOC's authorities, it is not clear that the legislation would address GAO's February 2016 suggestion. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017, and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. The bill would change FSOC's authorities by repealing its authorities to designate non-bank financial institutions and financial market utilities (i.e., payment, clearing, and settlement systems) as "systemically important." In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill may alter some of FSOC's authorities. However, it is unclear if these acts would alter FSOC's mission to better align it with its authorities to respond to systemic risk or addresses a gap in systemic risk mitigation mechanisms. Without legislative changes that would align FSOC's authorities with its mission, FSOC may lack the tools it needs to comprehensively address systemic risks that may emerge and a gap will continue to exist in the mechanisms for mitigating systemic risks. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they help to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks.
GAO-16-261, Jan 29, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3236
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
GAO-16-188, Jan 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, GSA officials said that they were unlikely to implement this recommendation because it would shift costs from the tenants to GSA but not reduce overall costs. GAO continues to believe that reducing unnecessary costs to tenant agencies would reduce overall leasing costs by encouraging GSA to be more efficient.
GAO-16-110, Dec 21, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2757
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.
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.
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.
GAO-16-151, Dec 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2017, Treasury officials told us that they planned to include correspondence data as part of Treasury's fiscal year 2018 annual performance plan and fiscal year 2016 annual performance report. While the fiscal year 2016 performance report included data on correspondence overage rates, as of August 2019, Treasury has not included correspondence overage as part of its performance goals. We continue to believe this recommendation is valid.
GAO-16-48, Oct 20, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. The Census Bureau informed us in December 2015 that no later than the end of December 2015, it would document how these matters have been addressed in the enumerator training (or in help screens on their mobile device) planned for the 2016 Census Test, and that it would use results and observations from that test to further refine such information for future tests and for the 2020 Census. The Bureau provided us with related training materials for the 2016 Test, yet we made similar observations during the 2016 test and the 2018 End-to-End test. For the Bureau to be informed on any additional training needs or other operational decisions for 2020, it will need to continue to expand its efforts in collecting information on enumerator-reported problems per our 2015 recommendation. In April 2020, Bureau officials said that it was not likely they would be able to incorporate additional changes for the 2020 Census field operations. With the Bureau's more recent April announcement to further delay field operations due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we are continuing to ask the Bureau if there is opportunity to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to identify what information it finds valuable to have from its enumerators, such as the incidence of specific technical problems with the survey instrument or mobile device and ensure that enumerators and their first-line supervisors are made aware of the importance of recording such information and how to do so.
GAO-16-15, Oct 14, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Staff from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) had previously told us that OFPP would be convening the FAR Council to discuss regulatory action after it completes the development of management guidance. In January 2020, OFPP staff stated that they are reviewing the extent to which this guidance is necessary moving forward, and noted that there is no estimated timeframe for completion of this review. However, in August 2020, OFPP staff said that in light of the focus on COVID and related priorities, OFPP does not have immediate plans to pursue guidance on bridge contracting at this time. OFPP staff noted that OFPP continues to work with agencies to help them effectively leverage acquisition flexibilities that reduce Procurement Acquisition Lead Times to reduce the need for bridge contracts. We continue to believe these actions are important to help ensure agencies do not continue to use these noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time, thereby risking paying more than they should for goods and services .
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB staff had previously told us that they had drafted guidance, which included a definition for bridge contracts, and that it was under review. In January 2020, OMB staff stated that they are reviewing the extent to which this guidance is necessary moving forward and noted that there is no estimated timeframe for completion of this review. However, in August 2020, OFPP staff said that in light of the focus on COVID and related priorities, OFPP does not have immediate plans to pursue guidance on bridge contracting at this time. OFPP staff noted that OFPP continues to work with agencies to help them effectively leverage acquisition flexibilities that reduce Procurement Acquisition Lead Times to reduce the need for bridge contracts. We continue to believe these actions are important to help ensure agencies do not continue to use these noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time, thereby risking paying more than they should for goods and services.
GAO-15-756, Sep 30, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken any action to direct USPS to provide cost estimates related to reporting on delivery performance for rural and non-rural areas
GAO-15-788, Sep 10, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has identified five priority goals (APGs) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. USDA states that action plans and progress updates for these goals are "coming soon". In a November 2018 letter to the Comptroller General, USDA's Inspector General acknowledged that additional efforts are needed to better describe the quality of the data supporting the APGs and said that the Department will increase the amount of information provided in the quarterly APG updates. In April 2020, we followed up and once more requested updated information from USDA officials. As of May 6, 2020, we have not received the requested information. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified three priority goals (APGs) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. DOD states action plans and progress updates are "coming soon" for Performance.gov. In March 2020, DOD officials reported that they continue to work to address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) has identified six priority goals (APGs) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. Interior states on Performance.gov that action plans and progress updates are "coming soon". We will continue to monitor Interior's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Performance Plan and Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Performance Report provides a general statement on how the agency uses a standardized methodology to measure its performance and that agency officials attest to the quality of the performance information. USDA also identifies its priority goals for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, but specific data quality explanation is not provided for these APGs. In a November 2018 letter to the Comptroller General, USDA's Inspector General stated that the Department agrees with the recommendation and will begin providing data quality explanation for the APGs in its next annual performance plan and report to be published in February 2019, but our review in 2019 found no such explanation. Further, as noted above the most recent plan and report do not provide the required explanation. In April 2020, we once more requested updated information from USDA officials and as of May 6, 2020 have not received the requested information. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense's (DOD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Annual Performance Plan and FY2019 Annual Performance Report states that, "each goal owner has attested the performance results and narrative information included in this report is complete, accurate, and reliable; and that data validation and verification procedures are documented and available upon request," and DOD refers readers to Performance.gov for more information about its priority goals (APGs). However, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires agencies to publish more specific data quality explanation for each APG in performance plans and reports and on Performance.gov. DOD's performance plan and report does not contain the more specific explanation required. Nor did our review of Performance.gov find the required explanation. In March 2020, DOD officials reported that they continue to work to address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior's (Interior) 2021/2020 Annual Performance Plan & 2019 Report (APP&R) includes a section concerning data accuracy and reliability and describes in general terms how Interior ensures the accuracy and reliability of performance information and how it addresses the five data quality requirements in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Interior states in this section that measurement procedures for agency performance goals are described on Performance.gov. As of May 2020, our review found that Interior has not provided specific data quality explanation for its APGs on Performance.gov. We will continue to monitor Interior's efforts to address our recommendation.
GAO-15-752T, Jul 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 2 priority recommendations
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.
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.
GAO-15-476, Jul 9, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 temporarily suspended the debt limit through July 31, 2021. This will allow the Treasury to continue to borrow to meet the funding needs of the federal government. However, the Act did not explicitly link decisions about the debt limit to legislation that is expected to increase borrowing needs or debate over specific tax or spending proposals and their effect on debt. As of June 2020, we confirmed that no further legislative action has been taken since our last update. We will continue to monitor legislation enacting future debt limit increases to see if it addresses our matter for congressional consideration.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 temporarily suspended the debt limit through July 31, 2021, but did not provide Treasury with more flexibility in the level of Treasury's operating cash at the end of the suspension period. As result, absent future action, Treasury is expected to reduce its cash balance to approximately the level it was at on the date the suspension was enacted as it has following previous debt limit suspensions, regardless of cyclical or other cash management needs. We will continue to monitor legislation enacting future debt limit increases to see if it addresses our matter for congressional consideration. As of June 2020, no relevant legislation has been enacted.
GAO-15-588, Jul 9, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with this recommendation. The Indian Health Service (IHS) informed GAO that in order to clarify and codify the policies related to priority for use of the Buy Indian Act, formal rulemaking was required. IHS published the intent to promulgate the regulation in the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 Unified Agendas. According to IHS officials, the timeline for completion of the new regulation is December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with this recommendation. The Indian Health Service (IHS) informed GAO that in order to clarify and codify policies related to priority for use of the Buy Indian Act, formal rulemaking was required. IHS published the intent to promulgate the regulation in the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 Unified Agendas. Further, the officials stated that once the new Buy Indian regulation is promulgated, IHS plans to identify a plan to collect data on area office implementation of key policy requirements, including monitoring authentication of contractor credentials. According to IHS officials, due to limitations within the Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation IHS is unable to collect the necessary data until the rule is promulgated.
GAO-15-531, Jul 8, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6722
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, SSA had taken steps to strengthen internal controls, as GAO recommended in July 2015, but it had not completed its efforts. In January 2020, SSA told GAO that it continues to work with DOL to establish a computer matching agreement to support the FECA data exchange and the agreement is pending at DOL for final review and signature. According to SSA, if the agreement is established, SSA will use the FECA benefit data to improve efficiencies in its ability to offset/reduce DI benefits when an individual is concurrently receiving FECA benefits. GAO will continue to monitor SSA's work in this area. SSA following through with these plans will help the agency identify and prevent potential DI overpayments.
GAO-15-579, Jul 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD officials previously told us that they interpreted relevant guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide them with flexibility to delegate responsibility for conducting these reviews. However, as of July 2020, OMB's guidance continues to clearly state that the agency head and/or Chief Operating Officer, with support of the Performance Improvement Officer, are responsible for leading agency reviews. In May and June 2020, DOD officials described to us meetings that agency officials used to review progress on each of the agency's priority goals. However, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary of Defense were involved in those review meetings. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us actions the agency has taken to conduct reviews consistent with what we recommended. For example, they provided a document confirming that officials reviewed one of the priority goals in an in-person meeting. However, they did not provide documentation to demonstrate that review processes for the agency's other priority goals are held in-person or at least quarterly. We have requested, but as of April 2020 have not received, this additional documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, has taken limited actions to address it. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us how the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is involved in reviewing progress on one of the agency's priority goals. However, as of April 2020, the State Department has not provided documentation we requested to corroborate the COO's involvement in this review, or reviews for the agency's other priority goals. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.
GAO-15-431, May 21, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Commerce had not implemented this recommendation. In July 2018, the department provided an inventory that shows, by service provider and department component, the number of devices per rate plan and monthly rate; however, the inventory did not include the number of voice minutes, gigabytes of data, and text messages allowed per line per month. Furthermore, the department had not demonstrated that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the department had not addressed the recommendation. In July 2018, the department described steps it was taking to identify lines that were inactive for a period of three or more continuous months (zero usage). However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has established documented procedures that address the elements of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of January 2020, the department had not implemented it. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that such an inventory has merits, but that maintaining one comes at considerable expense and effort. The department also stated, in 2016, that while it does not maintain a single, centralized device level inventory, the military departments track and manage their own devices and services . As we stated in our report, the inventory need not be generated centrally at the headquarters level; the department can compile a comprehensive inventory using its components' complete inventories. As of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that all its components had inventories of unique devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation; and has taken steps to address it. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that developing an inventory of mobile device contracts has merits, especially in a time of restricted government spending. The department also described several efforts it had undertaken to enhance mobile device management. However, as we stated in our report, any approach to managing mobile device contracts will be hampered by the lack of complete information on the contracts that are already in place. In August 2018, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department had not demonstrated that the inventory included all its components' mobile service contracts. In August 2019, the department described steps it was taking to ensure that it has a complete inventory of mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security developed an asset and inventory management plan for managing devices under its enterprise blanket purchase agreement. The plan includes procedures for assessing devices for zero usage; however, it does not include procedures for assessing over and under usage. The department also has not demonstrated that it has established procedures for devices not covered by its enterprise blanket purchase agreement.We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior has not demonstrated that it has fully implemented this recommendation. As of January 2020, the department demonstrated that only one of its components, the Bureau of Reclamation, had an inventory of mobile devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Interior had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed this recommendation. In August 2019, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Justice has made progress implementing this recommendation; however, more remains to be done. Specifically, in response to our findings, in April 2015, the department's Chief Information Officer issued a memo that required components to establish procedures for regular reviews of invoices for wireless services to identify unused and underused devices or services, as well as any over-usage charges to service plans. One of the components we reviewed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, established procedures in July 2016 to monitor mobile device usage. In addition, the Justice Management Division (JMD) established procedures in May 2019 that apply to JMD as well some but not all other components. The other component we reviewed in our report, the Drug Enforcement Agency, had not established procedures that address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not demonstrated that it has implemented this recommendation. The department has inventories of mobile device; however, the inventories do not include the services associated with each device. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not implemented this recommendation. In June 2019, the department said it has a Telecom Expense Management System which can be used to document an inventory of domestic service contracts; however, the department did not provide the inventory. Furthermore, the department did not demonstrate that it has an inventory of international service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Transportation had not addressed the recommendation. In December 2019, an official from the department's Audit Relations and Program Improvement office stated that all the department's telecommunication devices are managed through two programs and that these programs have mechanisms in place to ensure that telecommunications are managed in an effective and efficient manner. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, the department stated that it had established enterprise-wide procurement vehicles for mobile devices. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not implemented the recommendation. We reported in May 2015, that NASA had an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information which included most, but not all, of the devices used by the agency. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that the agency was in the process of enrolling devices in a new mobile device management tool, and that when the approximately 15 percent of devices that are not currently on NASA's new End-User Services Technology contract are brought on the contract, NASA will have a monthly deliverable depicting the services of all mobile devices. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that NASA had established, on September 1, 2019, the NASA End-User Services and Technology contract to procure mobile services, but as of November 2019, had not yet included 15 percent of its devices on the new contract. We will continue to monitor NASA's efforts to develop and maintain a mobile services contract inventory as described in our report.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that as part of enterprise mobility service contract deliverables, NASA requires monthly reports to monitor and optimize usage (zero, under, and over). NASA's OCIO also stated that the agency established role-based privileges to monitor and report on this activity agency-wide. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established procedures to assess device usage in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, an official from the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that the department was collecting and analyzing information on voice and data utilization. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had established procedures in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-15-368, Apr 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In comments printed in the April 2015 final report, HHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that it would review current links to guidance documents and explore ways to enhance their visibility and usability. As of June 2020, GAO is working with HHS officials to obtain additional updates and documentation regarding the department's implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-15-193, Feb 12, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action had been identified as of December 2019. Addressing this action, which GAO suggested in February 2015, could increase coordination between various levels of government and reduce duplication of effort, resources, and costs associated with collecting and maintaining accurate address data.
GAO-15-223, Jan 30, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Although OPM did not initially concur with this recommendation, OPM has taken actions towards addressing it by using the EHRI database, in combination with other sources, to generate workforce data to assist agencies in their efforts to identify skills gaps. In March 2019, OPM reported that it believed that collecting staffing gap targets through an alternative system, MAX Collect, would provide a more efficient and accurate means to collect workforce data than EHRI. In February 2020, OPM officials reported that it has used MAX Collect to address a portion of the recommendation by sharing lessons learned to close skills gaps. MAX Collect also stores and makes relevant tools and training available to users. However, OPM still needs to collect and store a consistent set of staffing and competency data. Without the collection and sharing of this data, OPM cannot perform valuable government-wide analysis to predict and address skills gaps in occupations affecting multiple agencies.
GAO-15-200, Dec 22, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation. Following a May 2015 Federal Acquisition Regulation update to reflect the requirements of Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy drafted supplementary information for an update of the agency's Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) that was considered and rejected by Defense Acquisition Regulation Council. In July 2019, the Office of Defense Pricing and Contracting reported that new PGI guidance would be drafted that will require management reviews to consider compliance with Section 802 requirements included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. As of August 2020, we have been unable to determine the status of this guidance.
GAO-15-79, Oct 17, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: To address agency use of paid administrative leave that may exceed reasonable amounts as well as discrepancies in recording and reporting paid administrative leave, in December 2016, Congress passed the "Administrative Leave Act of 2016." The act mandates new categories of paid leave, including "investigative leave," "notice leave," and "weather and safety leave" and sets limitations on the duration of paid administrative leave as well as the new categories of investigative and notice leave. The Act also requires OPM to establish regulations on (1) when to grant administrative leave and the other new categories of paid leave, and (2) the proper recording and reporting of these types of paid leave. In July 2017, OPM proposed new rules to regulate paid administrative leave, but has not finalized all these rules. In April 2018, OPM issued final regulations for "weather and safety leave" and announced that it would issue separate final regulations for "administrative leave," "investigative leave," and "notice leave" at a later date. In July 2019, OPM officials told us that they have not finalized the remaining regulations due to legal and practical concerns related to employees serving overseas. For example, the proposed rules could conflict with overseas personnel observing local holidays for security, diplomatic, and practical reasons. OPM also announced that it is reconvening its interagency working group for dismissal and closure procedures to update its "DC Dismissal and Closure Procedures" guidance to reflect the new "weather and safety leave" procedures. In addition, in response to our recommendation, in May 2015, OPM issued a fact sheet on administrative leave, which discusses the appropriate use of an agency's administrative leave authority, including a definition of administrative leave as well as applicable government-wide, individual agency, and emergency policies on the use of administrative leave. However, this fact sheet will need to be revised to reflect the newly issued regulations for "weather and safety leave" in addition to the regulations for the other categories of paid leave when they are in effect. Once all regulations are finalized, the proposed rules, along with updated fact sheet guidance, should help agencies and federal employees appropriately use, record, and report administrative leave. We will be contacting OPM to receive an update on the status of this recommendation once all the regulations are finalized and the fact sheet guidance is revised.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: To address agency use of paid administrative leave that may exceed reasonable amounts as well as discrepancies in recording and reporting paid administrative leave, in December 2016, Congress passed the "Administrative Leave Act of 2016." The act mandates new categories of paid leave, including "investigative leave," "notice leave," and "weather and safety leave" and sets limitations on the duration of paid administrative leave as well as the new categories of investigative and notice leave. The Act also requires OPM to establish regulations on (1) when to grant administrative leave and the other new categories of paid leave, and (2) the proper recording and reporting of these types of paid leave. In July 2017, OPM proposed new rules to regulate paid administrative leave, but has not finalized all these rules. In April 2018, OPM issued final regulations for "weather and safety leave" and announced that it would issue separate final regulations for "administrative leave," "investigative leave," and "notice leave" at a later date. To accompany the final regulations for "weather and safety leave," OPM issued two new data standards for agencies to report Paid Holiday Time Off and Weather and Safety Leave Hours Used that became effective in May 2018. Also, in November 2018, OPM released an update to its "DC Dismissal and Closure Procedures" guidance to reflect the new "weather and safety leave" procedures. Once all regulations are finalized, the proposed rules, along with updated guidance to payroll providers for reporting paid administrative leave and the new leave categories, should help agencies report comparable and reliable data to EHRI. We will be contacting OPM to receive an update on the status of this recommendation once the regulations are finalized and the guidance is revised.
GAO-14-648, Sep 19, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-9627
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest information on DHS headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading capital planning practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150), enacted on April 29, 2016, mirrors GAO recommendations in this area. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. We will review the latest information on DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of these recommendations at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading practices for capital planning and cost and schedule estimation is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of March 2019, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes: a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region; an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project; and updated cost and schedule estimates for the project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. A comprehensive report to Congress on DHS headquarters consolidation, along with reliable project cost and schedule estimates, could inform Congress's funding decisions.
GAO-14-677, Jul 31, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2020, OPM told us that it continues to concur with GAO's recommendation, however, in order to pursue examining such changes, OPM would need to be appropriately resourced. OPM reported that during 2019, it began studies to identify challenges agencies may experience with implementing OPM-issued classification standards. OPM believe this information, in addition to other prior studies and lessons learned, would help inform the examination going forward at a point in time OPM is resourced to do so. OPM reported it has continued to review and update individual series, despite broader efforts to evaluate the GS system as a whole. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM still needs to work in conjunction with key stakeholders such as OMB and unions; complete its review of studies and lessons learned; and if warranted, develop a legislative proposal to make the GS system's design and implementation more consistent with the attributes of a modern, effective classification system.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, OPM reported that it is active in monitoring oversight of classification policy and in issuing classification appeals decisions. However, OPM has experienced staff turnover in the past several months, resulting in the need for key subject matter experts to reconsider the actions proposed in this recommendation. OPM plans to provide GAO with an additional status update at the end of 2018. We will continue to monitor the steps OPM is taking to address this recommendation. GAO reached out to the agency in November 2019 and January 2020 and have yet to receive an update. GAO will continue to monitor the progress.
GAO-14-476, Jun 30, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4456
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
GAO-14-605, Jun 12, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: No executive action taken as of December 2019. While IRS agreed that having actual ROI data for implemented initiatives would be useful, it did not believe it was feasible to produce such estimates, as GAO recommended in June 2014. GAO maintains that IRS should be able to provide some information on past initiatives, such as whether funds requested were used in the manner originally proposed. As of December 2016, IRS officials reported there is no timeline for full implementation. Comparing projected ROI to actual ROI can help hold managers and IRS accountable for the funding received.
GAO-14-413, May 22, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Department of Commerce reported that training will be concurrent with the implementation of the new inventory. It estimates the completion of this to be June 30, 2019. In October 2017, the department reported that they were reaching out to another federal agency to learn about the software license management training they offer to incorporate lessons learned into the Commerce's future training plans. However, as of November 2019, the department has not provided an update on these efforts. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Department of Transportation stated that it has developed a policy addressing components of centralized management and management of software licenses through the entire life cycle. However, Transportation's Order 1351.21 was issued in June 2009 and has not been updated since our report was issued to include the weaknesses we identified. Specifically, the order identifies the roles and responsibility, and central oversight authority for managing enterprise license agreements and does not specify policy on establishing goals and objectives of the software license management program and considering the software license management life-cycle phases to implement effect decision making and incorporate existing standards, processes, and metrics. We will follow up with the department to obtain evidence of the department-wide implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Environment Protection Agency reported that it is currently taking steps to develop a comprehensive policy that will address a centralized management program of licenses, an analysis to inform decision making, education and training goals and overall management throughout the lifecycle. In addition, The Agency stated that it is still leveraging the efforts of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation project as well as its Office of Acquisition Management's consolidation of its Microsoft suite. We will follow up with the agency to obtain supporting documents and continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Environment Protection Agency reported that it is currently taking steps to develop a comprehensive policy that will address a centralized management program of licenses. In addition, the agency stated that it is still leveraging the efforts of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation project as well as leveraging its Office of Acquisition Management's consolidation of enterprise licenses. We will follow up with the agency to obtain supporting documents and continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that the agency's IT asset management program requires training and communication, as appropriate for all key personnel. The agency also reported that on September 19, 2018, personnel associated with software asset management attended relevant training and will also participate in software training is currently being developed by the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Acquisition Institute and the Defense Acquisition University. We will follow up with the agency to obtain supporting documents and continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015, reported that it had developed a guide to capture enterprise architecture lifecycle activities including software licensing management, acquisition, and requirements during several points of the project lifecycle. In April 2018, the office reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation, but expect substantive updates later this year. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015 reported that it is finalizing a revised Life Cycle Management draft policy which will use stage gate reviews to evaluate the progress of projects including software licenses throughout the agency. According to OPM, once the new policy is approved, OPM subject matter experts will review project documentation during stage gates reviews to make written recommendations on whether projects should continue. OPM's Investment Review Board will then review that recommendation and other procurement documentation to make a final recommendation to the OPM Director. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation, but expect substantive updates later this year. We plan to continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015 OPM reported that it acquired an enterprise architecture repository tool and is collecting information on its software applications. OPM also reported that it is assembling and performing quality reviews on hardware and software lists currently maintained in spreadsheets, in its enterprise architecture systems database, and Remedy database in order to consolidate the entire hardware and software asset inventory. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation, but expect substantive updates later this year. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015 OPM reported that it acquired an enterprise architecture repository tool and is collecting information on its software applications. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with our recommendations and noted actions the agency plans to take. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with our recommendations and noted actions the agency plans to take. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-14-44, Jan 13, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they plan to take actions to address this recommendation, as of July 2019 we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred
GAO-14-108, Dec 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
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.
GAO-13-540, Jun 28, 2013
Phone: (202)512-8815
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury continued to develop its budget deficit/surplus and cash reconciliation procedures. Specifically, Treasury performed a preliminary analysis on several federal entities' implementation of the new Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 53, Budget and Accrual Reconciliation (BAR), and noted inconsistencies in the way each entity populated line items in the BAR. Treasury and OMB provided additional guidance for the BAR in OMB Circular No. A-136 and on the Treasury U.S. Standard General Ledger website, including a BAR crosswalk template. However, additional work is needed to reconcile line items to audited federal entity financial statements. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury continued to make improvements in fiscal year 2019 by implementing procedures, publishing guidance, and developing new transaction codes to improve the accounting for and reporting of General Fund transactions and balances that Treasury uses to compute the budget deficit reported in the consolidated financial statements. However, additional work is needed in determining the appropriate presentation for the reconciling items, which could affect the line items included. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
GAO-13-227, May 12, 2013
Phone: (202)512-9869
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD), in concurring with this recommendation, stated that DOD will work with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to implement key quality assurance procedures, such as reconciliations, to ensure the completeness and accuracy of sampled populations. In August 2017, DOD officials stated that its Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will continue its work with DFAS to annually reconcile gross outlays (as stated on its Statement of Budgetary Resources) with outlays as reported in its Agency Financial Report. These reconciliations are currently done only on a summary level. In the future, DOD's validation of its universe of transactions combined with planned reconciliations with the Defense Departmental Reporting System trial balance and transaction data from DOD's entitlement systems will provide more complete reconciliations. As of December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD needs to resolve its material weakness relating to the universe of transactions. This material weakness is preventing the department from performing the reconciliations necessary to ensure that the populations, from which the samples are drawn to estimate improper payments, are complete and accurate. As of May 2020, DOD had developed a spreadsheet including over 80 financial management and disbursing systems. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, OUSD(C), is planning to review and analyze these systems to (1) determine the types of payments and lists of systems used to process the types of payments; (2) confirm if reconciliations are done to verify the total outlays; and (3) determine the testing status of the universe of payments. As of September 30, 2020, this recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Department of Defense (DOD) officials, in concurring with this recommendation, stated that DOD would work with the applicable components to monitor the implementation of the revised Financial Management Regulation (FMR) chapter on recovery audits (subsequently renamed as payment recapture audits). According to DOD officials, this action would help to ensure that recovery audits are developed, or will demonstrate that it is not cost-effective to do these audits. In July 2015, DOD was working to update the FMR chapter on recovery audits to reflect revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance issued in October 2014. DOD issued its revised FMR chapter in November 2015. This chapter requires components to develop cost-effective payment recapture audits or to submit a quantitative justification to the Office of the Under Secretary (Comptroller) for approval. However, we consider this recommendation to be open because DOD did not provide documentation demonstrating that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is monitoring component implementation of recovery auditing. Further, as of April 2017, DOD's efforts to develop cost-estimates for recovery audits were still under way. As of October 2018, this recommendation remains open. As of December 2019, DOD stated that in FY 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary (Comptroller) will coordinate with the DOD improper payment reporting components to analyze whether it would be cost effective to implement payment recapture audit programs for their payments. In a March 20, 2020 memorandum, the Deputy CFO asked DOD components, programs, or activities with annual payments exceeding $1 million to submit a payment recapture plan by June 30, 2020. If a component determines that payment recapture audits are not cost-effective, then the plan must provide the specific analysis and documentation used to reach that conclusion. When completed, the results of the evaluation will serve the Department's final position on payment recapture audit programs. As of September 30, 2020, this recommendation remains open as this evaluation was not yet complete.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Department of Defense (DOD) officials, in concurring with this recommendation, stated that DOD would develop and submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a payment recapture plan that fully complies with OMB guidance and is informed by a cost-effectiveness analysis. In July 2015, DOD's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) efforts to develop a payment recapture audit plan to ensure cost-effectiveness were ongoing and these efforts must be completed before a plan can be submitted to the OMB. In June 2016, DOD officials stated that the Comptroller's efforts to develop a payment recapture audit plan to ensure cost-effectiveness were ongoing. As of August 28, 2017, DOD officials stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will determine if a payment recapture audit plan was developed and submitted to OMB for approval in the previous fiscal years. If so, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will determine its relevance and significance (i.e. cost effectiveness)to the improper payments program. If the payment recapture audit plan is considered to be applicable, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) will update the previous plan to comply with current OMB guidance. As of October 2018, this recommendation remains open. As of December 2019, DOD stated that in FY 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary (Comptroller) will coordinate with the DOD improper payment reporting components to analyze whether it would be cost effective to implement payment recapture audit programs for their payments. In a March 20, 2020 memorandum, the Deputy CFO asked DOD components, programs, or activities with annual payments exceeding $1 million to submit a payment recapture plan by June 30, 2020. If a component determines that payment recapture audits are not cost-effective, then the plan must provide the specific analysis and documentation used to reach that conclusion. When completed, the results of the evaluation will serve the Department's final position on payment recapture audit programs. As of September 30, 2020, this recommendation remains open as this evaluation was not yet complete..
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Department of Defense (DOD) officials, in concurring with this recommendation, stated that DOD would design and implement procedures to further ensure that its annual improper payment and recovery audit reporting is complete, accurate, and in compliance with the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) requirements and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. In June 2015, DOD revised its FMR chapter on improper payments to require components to provide information needed to report on improper payment and recovery audit activities in its annual financial report (AFR) in accordance with IPERA requirements and OMB guidance. DOD's fiscal year 2015 AFR reflected its implementation of the revised FMR. We found that DOD's improper payment reporting in its fiscal year 2015 AFR had improved. However, we were not provided with evidence that Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is performing oversight and monitoring activities to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the improper payment and recovery audit data submitted by DOD components for inclusion in the AFR. DOD is continuing to work on procedures for ensuring that its reporting on improper payment and recovery audits is accurate, complete, and in compliance with IPERA and OMB guidance. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) has developed and implemented a Payment Integrity Checklist to ensure that the department's annual improper payment and recovery audit reporting was complete, accurate, and in compliance with IPERA and OMB guidance. However, the DOD Inspector General in its May 2020 report, stated that while DOD published improper payment estimates for all eight programs for fiscal year 2019, it did not publish reliable estimates for five of the eight programs: Military Health Benefits, Civilian Pay, Military Retirement, DOD Travel Pay, and Commercial Pay. Moreover, DOD did not use accurate populations in calculating the improper payment estimates for the Military Retirement, Commercial Pay, and DOD Travel Pay programs. Based on these issues affecting improper payment reporting, we consider this recommendation to be open as of September 30, 2020.
GAO-13-228, Feb 26, 2013
Phone: (202)512-3236
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.
GAO-13-21, Dec 20, 2012
Phone: (617)788-0534
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.
GAO-13-83, Nov 29, 2012
Phone: (202)512-9601
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State concurred with the recommendation. As of September 2020, State had provided some evidence that State was going to conduct an organizational evaluation of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund as called for under the Department's evaluation policy. GAO is now in the process of reviewing the evidence that State has provided.
GAO-13-22, Nov 18, 2012
Phone: (202)512-4859
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that the reliability and utility of the EVM data needed to be improved but that it did not plan to implement a formal surveillance plan due to resource constraints. Since initially commenting on the report, however, in December 2018, NASA included an initiative in its Corrective Action Plan-a plan put in place in response to recent programmatic performance and NASA's designation on GAO's High-Risk List-to enhance EVM implementation. In June 2019, NASA issued EVM guidance that covered several items, including enhancing in-house and contracted earned value management surveillance and requiring EVM reporting at Baseline Performance Review. NASA officials reported that its near-term plans are well-defined to address the reliability of project EVM data, but they have expressed concerns about funding challenges and cultural resistance. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to take action and provide documentary support for several of its identified planned next steps to enhance EVM surveillance. Without implementing proper surveillance, NASA may be utilizing unreliable EVM data in its analyses to inform its cost and schedule decision making.
GAO-13-23, Oct 15, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3841
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.
GAO-12-791, Sep 26, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce has not implemented this recommendation. Since we reported in 2012 that the department had established metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes but not a method for measuring the metrics, the department issued an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan in April 2018. This plan included outcome metrics; however, the department had not documented a method for measuring the metrics. In January 2020, the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) stated that the department recently appointed a new CIO (acting) and was in the process of revisiting strategic planning initiatives and implementation to ensure they are congruent with the IT strategic vision and objectives. The Office of the CIO also said it was hiring a new Chief Enterprise Architect, which would impact previous initiatives and strategies. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that it would establish an approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes defined in the DOD Digital Modernization Strategy, by September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided documentation demonstrating that it had established metrics and a method for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Army had taken steps to address this recommendation, but much more remains to be done. Specifically, in December 2013, the department developed its Army Business Management Strategy, which included metrics to measure the number of business systems retired over five years and cost savings and avoidance through use of the Army's business enterprise architecture. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had documented the steps to measure the metrics. In January 2020, the department's chief architect stated that the department was in the process of establishing a baseline architecture. We will continue to monitor the Army's efforts to establish an architecture and an approach for measuring architecture outcomes in accordance with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Energy demonstrated that it had taken steps to implement the recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the department developed a draft plan to measure business architecture performance. We will monitor the department's efforts to finalize and implement its plan.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor has not addressed the recommendation. In August 2020, the department stated that it was continuing to evaluate processes for reviewing and assessing enterprise architecture value.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the Department of State developed an enterprise architecture plan, which identified several benefits that may be achieved by executing the plan. These benefits included, for example, lower support and acquisition costs and reuse of technology and investments. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had established an approach for measuring the potential benefits in the plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency has not implemented this recommendation. In December 2019, the agency stated that its chief architect and technical architecture staff were working to reformulate the enterprise architecture program and described several goals and activities that were underway. The agency also stated that the program was examining industry best practices on architecture metrics to determine which would be best for EPA's enterprise architecture program. As metrics are adopted to assess the value of the architecture program, the program will work them into the agency-wide process for performance metrics. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not yet implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, NASA's Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Service and Integration said the agency was in the process of developing an enterprise architecture policy directive and procedural requirements. He anticipated that they would be completed in October 2020.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, the Small Business Administration had not implemented this recommendation. In August 2019, SBA developed an enterprise architecture program performance guide and value measurement plan. According to the plan, the agency plans to measure cost savings/avoidance and reduction of duplication. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has documented the steps to be followed to measure the outcomes. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that it had established a method to measure the cost savings/avoidance or the number of duplicate investments reduced.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, a Senior Analyst in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance stated that, as of January 2020, OPM's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) had established an approach for developing an enterprise architecture. The liaison also stated that, since May 2019, the office of the CIO had established bi-weekly checkpoints with leadership and stakeholders to monitor and report progress and to document established metrics. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established a documented method and metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Agriculture demonstrated that it had established an approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes; however, it had not yet measured and reported them. The department conducted a survey in February 2020 that collected information such as the number of legacy systems that were identified and subsequently decommissioned, and the number of applications that have been eliminated as a result of application rationalization through use of enterprise architecture. The department stated that it will release the second survey in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, and the differences in the responses between the first and second surveys will be presented to the CIO Council to show the impact of enterprise architecture. The department did not state when it plans to report the results. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce has not implemented this recommendation. In April 2018, the department issued an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan; however, the department has not demonstrated that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. In January 2020, the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) stated that the department recently appointed a new CIO (acting) and was in the process of revisiting all strategic planning initiatives and implementation to ensure they are congruent with the IT strategic vision and objectives. The Office of the CIO also said it was hiring a new Chief Enterprise Architect, which would impact previous initiatives and strategies. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that it would establish a documented approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes defined in the DOD Digital Modernization Strategy by September 2020, and report outcomes by December 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, it had not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Department of Energy had not implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, the department described steps it had taken to develop its enterprise architecture. For example, it said that the department had established a Technical Reference Model, which supports processes and criteria for selecting and reviewing software across the department's headquarters. The department said it used the reference model to identify software products that could be eliminated or consolidated to achieve cost savings. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documents demonstrating that it had measured and reported architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the status of the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor has not addressed the recommendation. In August 2020, the department stated that it was evaluating processes for reviewing and assessing enterprise architecture value.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, the Department of Veterans Affairs stated that it plans to measure enterprise architecture performance by the end of March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the Department of State developed an enterprise architecture plan, which identified several benefits that may be achieved by executing the plan. These benefits included, for example, lower support and acquisition costs and reuse of technology and investments. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had measured and reported outcomes attributed to its architecture. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency has not implemented this recommendation. In December 2019, the agency stated that its chief architect and technical architecture staff were working to reformulate the enterprise architecture program and described several goals and activities that were underway. The agency also stated that the program was examining industry best practices on architecture metrics to determine which would be best for EPA's enterprise architecture program. As metrics are adopted to assess the value of the architecture program, the program will work them into the agency-wide process for performance metrics. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, NASA's Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Service and Integration said the agency was in the process of developing an enterprise architecture policy directive and procedural requirements. He anticipated that they would be completed in October 2020.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, the Small Business Administration (SBA) had not implemented this recommendation. SBA's Office of the CIO stated that it achieved IT cost savings and avoidance as a result of IT infrastructure service and support reduction and data center optimization in fiscal years 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2019. In a March 2020 memo to GAO, the Chief Information Officer explained that the agency's enterprise architecture team reviewed IT acquisition requests, which led to reducing duplicative IT investments and resulted in the cost savings and avoidance. However, the agency did not demonstrate that it had reliably measured the cost savings and avoidance. Specifically, it did not provide documentation demonstrating how it calculated most of the savings it reported.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, a Senior Analyst in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance stated that, as of January 2020, OPM's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) had established an approach for developing an enterprise architecture. The liaison also stated that, since May 2019, the office of the CIO had established bi-weekly checkpoints with leadership and stakeholders to monitor and report progress and to document established metrics. However, the agency has not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. Specifically, it had not demonstrated that it had measured architecture metrics that it had established in its April 2014 Enterprise Roadmap. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
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.
GAO-12-819, Aug 23, 2012
Phone: (202)512-4325
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: According to HUD, the department implemented improvements to its Integrated Disbursement and Information System in 2012, which were intended to upgrade HUD's ability to track Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantee progress in implementing activities and gather improved data with regard to performance. In addition, HUD completed an extensive CDBG data clean-up effort in response to a HUD Inspector General audit.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: According to HUD, the department implemented improvements to its Integrated Disbursement and Information System in 2012, which were intended to upgrade HUD's ability to track Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantee progress in implementing activities and gather improved data with regard to performance. In addition, HUD completed an extensive CDBG data clean-up effort in response to a HUD Inspector General audit.
GAO-12-686, Aug 9, 2012
Phone: (202)512-6670
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of fiscal year 2019, FCC's annual appropriations continued to prohibit the use of any excess fees from the current year or previous years.
GAO-12-830R, Jul 26, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
Status: Open
Comments: During our audit of the American Battle Monuments Commission's (Commission) fiscal year 2011 financial statements, we found that the Commission had not performed independent physical inventory of equipment owned by the Commission at the various cemeteries across the world. We found that although the Commission had a policy to perform biennial physical inventory counts of all equipment over $500, this policy was not adhered to during fiscal year 2011. Further, the policy did not explain how to plan, execute, and analyze the results of an inventory count. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Commission instruct the appropriate officials to establish and implement written procedures for conducting all physical inventory counts of equipment. These procedures, at a minimum, should outline the processes for (1) planning and executing the physical inventory count and (2) analyzing and documenting the results. During our follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement procedures to address this recommendation but have not dedicated resources to it yet. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
Status: Open
Comments: During our audit of the American Battle Monuments Commission's (Commission) fiscal year 2011 financial statements, we found that the Commission had not performed independent physical inventory of equipment owned by the Commission at the various cemeteries across the world. We found that although the Commission had a policy to perform biennial physical inventory counts of all equipment over $500, this policy was not adhered to during fiscal year 2011. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Commission direct the appropriate officials to establish a mechanism to monitor implementation of existing Commission policy to perform biennial physical inventory counts of all items of equipment with an obligated balance of $500 or more. During our fiscal year 2012 audit, we found that although the Commission had performed a comparison of the equipment on hand to the data recorded in SharePoint (document management web application to share documents internally), an independent physical inventory was not performed. We determined that the Commission had not established a mechanism for performing an inventory of assets. During our follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement procedures to address this recommendation but have not dedicated resources to it yet. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
GAO-12-366, Mar 26, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: DOD compiled lessons learned during the source selection phase of the KC-46 program. As of August 2020, the Department has identified lessons learned during program implementation to evaluate cost, schedule and performance outcomes as we recommended. Program officials provided a copy of the report, which is with SAF/AQ for approval, and will then be distributed across the department.
GAO-12-54, Feb 24, 2012
Phone: (202)512-2757
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.
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.
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.
GAO-12-317, Jan 31, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, no legislative action has been identified. Congress has not required agencies to participate in ICASS absent a business case that shows that they can obtain services outside ICASS without additional cost to the U.S. government, as GAO suggested in January 2012. GAO identified no congressional action on this matter in fiscal year 2019. In January 2014, the joint explanatory statement regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, included a direction that the Secretary of State develop, in coordination with the ICASS Service Center and participating agencies, an efficient process by which an agency participating in the ICASS program provides a cost analysis and justification for the agency's decision to opt out of any ICASS services. However, this direction does not require agencies to participate in ICASS absent such a justification. Action on this matter is important because continued duplication of administrative services limits ICASS's ability to achieve economies of scale and deliver services more efficiently.
GAO-12-176, Dec 15, 2011
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, IRS had not developed a new measure for refund timeliness. In early 2019, Treasury announced that it would discontinue reporting the refund timeliness measure beginning with fiscal year 2019 because it was based on paper returns, which account for approximately 10 percent of returns. Nevertheless, as of January 2020, IRS continues to use this measure internally to monitor performance. During the 2019 tax filing season, taxpayers filed about 90 percent of returns electronically, and as a means to set taxpayer expectations, IRS publicly reported that about 90 percent of taxpayers owed a refund received it in less than 21 days. Accordingly, we continue to believe that IRS's sole performance measure of issuing paper-filed refunds within 40 days is outdated and does not acknowledge advances in technology that allow IRS to issue refunds faster. We agree with IRS that the environment has changed considerably since we made this recommendation--the growth in identity theft refund fraud has increased the need for additional scrutiny of tax refunds, which can add to the time needed to process tax returns. IRS can take into account its concerns and set a performance measure and goal that would be both challenging and obtainable. Without a measure and goal to assess refund timeliness that includes both paper and electronically filed returns and is reflective of IRS's current capabilities, IRS is missing opportunities to provide optimum levels of taxpayer service while also ensuring that taxpayers receive accurate refunds. As such, we believe that our recommendation remains valid.
GAO-11-703, Sep 7, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: FHWA has taken initial steps to implement a mechanism for state oversight, which includes collecting program implementation information from each state. FHWA plans to convene a working group to review this information and provide feedback to states on their programs. FHWA officials then anticipate sharing best practices and essential requirements for the program through webinars and other technical assistance. As of August 2019, FHWA has gathered information from states and is in the early stages of implementing this oversight mechanism.
GAO-11-696, Jul 21, 2011
Phone: (202)512-5837
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-11-524R, Apr 28, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the department's new performance management system and any efforts to address this recommendation. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, this documentation. has not been received. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
GAO-11-111, Dec 16, 2010
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, IRS finalized a customer service strategy identifying an optimal telephone level of service. According to the strategy, IRS has a process to compare major metrics with other agencies and private industry, and conducted two studies to look at industry practices. In response to our recommendation, IRS compared its telephone data with similar telephone environments, and determined that a telephone level of service between 70 and 80 percent provides an optimal balance for servicing customer service telephones and paper correspondence requests. However, IRS faced two significant challenges in managing the 2019 filing season: (1) implementing major tax law changes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), and (2) a lapse in appropriations that left IRS unfunded during five weeks leading up to the opening of the 2019 filing season. As a result of issues stemming from these challenges, IRS revised its 2019 filing season telephone service goals from 80 percent to 65 percent during the filing season, and from 75 percent to 63 percent for all of fiscal year 2019. By not maintaining the identified optimal level of service standard, IRS is missing opportunities to illustrate gaps between actual and desired levels of service that may have resulted from issues linked to TCJA implementation and the lapse in appropriations. IRS did outline steps it is taking to achieve the optimal range of 70-80 percent telephone level of service outlined in its customer service strategy. Specifically, IRS said that it is working to upgrade equipment for all IRS business units that provide telephone services to taxpayers. It also cited examples of these upgrades, such as implementing a customer callback system that allows callers to keep their place in queue without remaining on the phone. While IRS said it has allocated funding to begin the development and installation of the customer callback feature, it did not provide an estimate of the resources required to upgrade the equipment and otherwise achieve the optimum range of telephone level of service. By not providing sufficient information to Congress on resources needed to achieve an optimal level of service, IRS is missing opportunities to justify the resources it believes are needed to improve taxpayer service.
GAO-11-45, Dec 14, 2010
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In 2011, the Bureau reported on the agency's assessment of the partnership program. In September 2014, the Bureau's Path to the 2020 Census, identified the Partnership Program as one of the best methods for communicating the importance of response and states its intent to map out details about the Partnership Program in early 2016. As of March 2018, Bureau officials said they were developing coordination mechanisms between partnership and Area Census Office staff for the 2020 Census. For example, the Bureau updated a form it had used during the 2010 Census to track partnership outreach activities to help facilitate information sharing within the Bureau and said it plans to make additional updates. In March 2019, the Bureau informed us that it is assigning at least one partnership specialist to each census office manager to help address this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, the Bureau had not put in place expectations for how Partnership staff should support area census office staff. We also reported that pluralities of area census office managers we surveyed in March 2020 were dissatsified with the level of clarity of roles and responsibilities of Partnership staff, as well as the level of communication and coordination between Partnership and office staff. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take such steps as documenting for partnership specialists and their area census office manager how they are expected to work together and other significant mechanisms that would increase effectiveness of coordination and communication between partnership and local field office staff.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In September 2012, the Bureau issued its assessment of the Service Based Enumeration Program. The assessment reported on the number of individuals counted and the complexities of this special enumeration activity. The assessment did not address the Bureau's approach to staffing this special enumeration activity. In its 2020 Census Operational Plan, issued in October 2017, the Bureau provided a high level overview of reengineered field operations plans but did not provide details on special enumeration efforts. In April 2018, the Bureau provided us with its planned staffing ratios for its Service-Based Enumeration activity for the 2020 Census in comparison to those used in the 2010 Census, as well as results of its 2016 Census Test of SBE activity. As of August 2020 we have ongoing work that will be examining implementation of peak field operations and providing updates to this recommendation. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to demonstrate that its planning for how it will determine staffing levels for SBE takes into account the factors that led to inefficient staffing allocation previously.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In 2012, the Bureau reported on assessments of many 2010 special enumeration activities such as the Service-Based Enumeration and the Be Counted/Questionnaire Assistance Center Programs. These assessments revealed the number of persons counted and spending for the special enumeration activities. Separately, the Bureau issued results of the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Program that described the level of coverage of various hard-to-enumerate populations generally without attributing coverage to specific enumeration activities. Since 2015, the Bureau has issued annual updates of its 2020 Census Operational Plans, which have not provided details of plans for various special enumeration activities. In April 2017 Bureau officials provided us with evaluation results of its 2010 communication efforts and other documents related to ongoing efforts to reduce errors in the census. As of August 2020, we are in communication with Bureau officials about steps they are taking to implement this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to demonstrate how it is relying on data about how various special enumeration activities of historically hard-to-enumerate groups contributed to census coverage in 2010 to inform its design for the 2020 Census.
GAO-10-455, Apr 12, 2010
Phone: (202)512-8509
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has taken no action on this matter.
GAO-10-349, Feb 10, 2010
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as we suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. In addition, Congress expanded math error authority for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit in November 2009. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what we suggested in February 2010, we maintain that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of January 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority. We continue to believe that Congress should broaden IRS's math error authority with appropriate safeguards in order to help reduce the tax gap, which is the difference between tax amounts that taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid .
GAO-10-59, Nov 13, 2009
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule (GAO-14-59), Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. Bureau officials announced they had completed the 2020 Census schedule in July 2016, and have since periodically described their intent to link resources to activities within their schedules. However, as of May 2018, when the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation. In July 2018 (GAO-18-589) we reported again on the status of the Bureau's scheduling, stating that when the Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the schedule more effectively as a management tool. The Bureau took steps toward assigning resources to its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps in developing its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.
GAO-10-102, Oct 28, 2009
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
GAO-06-347, Apr 14, 2006
Phone: 2025166906
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.
GAO-05-690, Sep 23, 2005
Phone: (202) 512-7968
including 2 priority recommendations
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.
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.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Treasury did not submit comments on this report and deferred to OMB. OMB agreed that this recommendation had promise and also said that tax expenditure evaluations were the responsibility of Treasury, which had access to the necessary data. 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. In 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.
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.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2005, the Department of the Treasury responded that this recommendation did not relate to Treasury. 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. 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.