Recommendation: The Director of DLA should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 5)

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 7)

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.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 9)

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

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

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should ensure Commercial Market Representatives clearly and consistently document compliance reviews and maintain these records. (Recommendation 10)

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.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should establish procedures requiring the military departments to collect and share findings from their peer reviews of MDAP contracting approaches—including choice of contract type—such as by updating the existing online compendium of best practices and lessons learned as they complete their reviews.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation, but as of August 2020 has not taken any action to implement it.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration, with input from NNSA's Office of Management and Budget and respective program offices, should establish and implement a work breakdown structure change control process for common financial reporting that ensures changes are approved by program office management, at a minimum; documented; and communicated to M&O contractors on a timely basis. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and officials said they are working to establish a work breakdown structure change control process by June 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should assess the extent to which M&O contractors make manual changes to their financial data to reconcile with STARS and determine whether it has an effect on the accuracy of the data collected for common financial reporting. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and plans to review how management and operating (M&O) contractors make manual changes to their financial data as part of an ongoing review of M&O contractors indirect cost data. The review is expected to be completed by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop and implement an internal process for NNSA to verify how the M&O contractors crosswalk financial data from their systems to the appropriate NNSA work breakdown structure to ensure the reported data are accurate and consistent. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and plans to establish a process to verify that the management and operating (M&O) contractors are crosswalking their financial data to the appropriate NNSA work breakdown structure by September 30, 2020. As of April 2020, NNSA has hired two federal employees who will be conducting site visits to work with M&O contractors on verifying their crosswalks.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop and implement an internal process for NNSA to verify that the M&O contractors are consistently applying common cost element definitions at their sites and across the nuclear security enterprise. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and plans to establish a process to verify that the management and operating (M&O) contractors are consistently applying common cost element definitions at their sites and across the nuclear security enterprise by September 30, 2020. As of April 2020, NNSA has hired two federal employees who will be conducting site visits to work with M&O contractors on verifying their crosswalks.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop and implement a plan with GSA that outlines the actions needed to fully recover the TMF Program Management Office's operating expenses with administrative fee collection in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with GSA to clarify the requirement in the TMF guidance that agencies follow the cost estimating process outlined in Circular A-11 (that references GAO's cost estimating guidance discussed in this report), when developing the proposal cost estimate. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should develop and implement a plan with OMB that outlines the actions needed to fully recover the TMF Program Management Office's operating expenses with administrative fee collection in a timely manner. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should work with OMB to clarify the requirement in the TMF guidance that agencies follow the cost estimating process outlined in Circular A-11 (that references GAO's cost estimating guidance discussed in this report), when developing the proposal cost estimate. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of General Services should develop detailed guidance for completing the Technology Modernization Fund project cost estimate template, including information on the data elements and the fields required to be completed, in order to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the provided information. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the General Services Administration (GSA) concurred with our recommendation but has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should ensure that the information it uses to verify nonprofit status for all nongovernmental hospitals that participate in the 340B Program is reliable—for example, by requiring and reviewing the submission of official documentation hospitals must already maintain or by ensuring the reliability of the data the agency uses. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and in June 2020, reiterated that HRSA believes that the information it uses to determine nonprofit status is reliable, because hospital administrators attest to its accuracy. However, as discussed in our report, neither HRSA nor the agency that collects the data has evaluated the reliability of the data for verifying nonprofit status. Without ensuring it is using reliable information, HRSA cannot effectively determine if nongovernmental hospitals participating, or seeking to participate, in the 340B Program meet the statutory eligibility requirements.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should implement a process to verify that every nongovernmental hospital that participates in the 340B Program has a contract with a state or local government as required by statute. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation and, as of June 2, 2020, did not plan to take any actions to implement the recommendation. HHS noted that requiring all covered entities to submit a state or local government contract would create a significant burden for covered entities. However, as we noted in our report, HRSA already requires hospitals to maintain copies of their state or local government contracts. Therefore, it is unclear how implementing a process to verify the existence of those contracts would represent a significant burden. Without this information, HRSA does not have reasonable assurance that nongovernmental hospitals have the statutorily required contracts to participate in the 340B Program.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should provide more specific guidance for 340B Program auditors on how to determine if nongovernmental hospitals' contracts with state and local governments require the provision of health care services to low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and in June 2020, indicated that HRSA had updated its audit guidance and procedures to more clearly specify that contracts must contain requirements for the provision of health care services to low-income individuals. However, these documents do not contain any specific guidance on how auditors are to evaluate whether contracts require these services. Without more specific guidance for auditors' review of contracts, HRSA lacks reasonable assurance that the audits are appropriately identifying deficiencies in nongovernmental hospitals' contracts with state or local governments.

Recommendation: The Administrator of HRSA should require nongovernmental hospitals participating in the 340B Program to demonstrate that they have contracts with state or local governments in effect prior to the beginning of their audits' periods of review and should apply consistent and appropriate consequences for hospitals that are unable to do so. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As noted in our report, HRSA updated its draft audit procedures for fiscal year 2020 audits in September 2019 to specify that auditors should look for effective dates that cover the entire audit period. While this is an important step, HRSA must also show that it has ceased accepting retroactive contract documentation, and has applied consistent and appropriate consequences when auditors find that nongovernmental hospitals did not have contracts in effect prior to the beginning of their audit periods. As of June 2020, HHS indicated that HRSA had not taken these actions. Allowing hospitals that are unable to demonstrate that they have contracts in place that cover their audits' periods of review to continue to participate without consequences undermines the effectiveness of HRSA's audit process and increases the risk that ineligible hospitals will receive discounts under the program.

Recommendation: The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD[C]) should include an assessment of risks related to contractor ownership as part of its ongoing efforts to plan and conduct a department-wide fraud risk assessment. As part of this assessment, consistent with leading practices, DOD should involve relevant stakeholders with knowledge of emerging risks and use this information to help inform other types of risk assessments across the department, including for national security concerns. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should report information on all professional SSCs to which funds were obligated during the fiscal year in its annual congressional budget justification materials. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with our recommendation and agreed to update its methodology for the fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials in an effort to ensure that contracts are counted accurately. Based on our review of the contracts listed in the budget justification materials, NNSA inappropriately excluded six contracts from its fiscal year 2021 congressional budget justification reporting. GAO is following up with NNSA officials to determine why these contracts were excluded.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should collect and report all required data regarding the number of FTE contractor personnel employed under an SSC for more than 2 years. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred in principle with the recommendation and planned to meet with congressional staff to discuss ways to further enhance the reported data before the 2021 budget materials were prepared. NNSA provided additional information in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification explaining that it did not have access to the information needed to report information to report required data regarding the number of FTE contractor personnel employed under an support service contract for more than 2 years. We will continue to follow-up on NNSA's progress in collecting and reporting the required data.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should report in NNSA's annual congressional budget justification materials the program appropriations account—Weapons Activities or Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation—used to fund each SSC and total the amounts obligated by appropriations account. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation and included in the fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials additional information on the fund value and description in the table of support service contracts. However, NNSA did not total the amounts for each appropriation account. As a result, information on the total amounts of each appropriation account is not as transparent as it could be to assist Congress for planning purposes. GAO is following up with agency officials to identify any additional actions planned to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should take steps to ensure that contracting officers document—in the required determination form or elsewhere in the contract file—information on the steps that the contracting officers plan to take to oversee SSCs that NNSA has determined to be at high risk of including inherently governmental functions. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of this report, NNSA stated that it considers the recommendation closed based on processes already in place, as well as the complementary activities discussed in response to our sixth recommendation. We continue to believe that documenting planned oversight activities in the contract files is important to ensure that planned oversight is consistent throughout the duration of the contract. We will continue to monitor NNSA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should develop a process to verify that contracting officers are carrying out the steps identified to oversee contracts at risk of including inherently governmental functions throughout the term of the contract. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NNSA generally agreed with the recommendation. NNSA stated that, among other things, it will review and revise, as necessary, the designation letters for contractor officers' representatives to ensure they clearly address the expectations for daily operational awareness and monitoring for risks associated with high-risk contracts, including those involving activities closely associated with inherently governmental functions. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of ETA should develop, document, and implement a comprehensive strategy that (1) accounts for Job Corps' projected workload requirements and (2) considers its acquisition workforce needs—including the number of staff, skills, and other supports necessary to plan, award, and monitor Job Corps center contracts—to enable it to effectively plan for and competitively award future Job Corps center contracts. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration
Status: Open

Comments: DOL stated that it will develop, document, and implement a comprehensive strategy that accounts for Job Corps' projected workload requirements and considers its acquisition workforce needs. DOL noted that it has released a new procurement plan which reflects its decision to re-procure 28 Job Corps centers prior to the final option year of their contract. DOL said that this action would result in each region having no more than five procurements each year, which it considers a manageable procurement workload for its current staffing level. We will consider closing the recommendation when such a comprehensive strategy is implemented.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Commanding General of Army Futures Command, in coordination with relevant Army entities, to establish command-wide performance measures and develop a plan to use these measures to systematically assess the effectiveness of small business engagement in support of research and development. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In fiscal year 2020, AFC developed both short-term and long-term performance measures to capture and monitor information on small business engagements across the command, but are still developing a database to systematically track the progression of engagements and outcomes. Officials expect to establish a database by fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should clearly define—in guidance or other documents—which subcontracts should be audited, how an audit is defined, and how to meet subcontract audit requirements if Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct the audit.(Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report, DOE partially concurred with the recommendation, but stated that there is no government-wide requirement that defines an audit or prescribes the auditing of subcontracts. According to officials, DOE reviewed existing regulations, guidance, and contract provisions on audit requirements and determined that a need exists for additional guidance or contract provisions on audits for major contracts. As of June 2020, DOE was working with the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council to recommend a government-wide requirement to define audit and prescribe when to obtain audits of subcontracts. Additionally, DOE included in its Acquisition Guide information on audit options when the Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct an audit.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require local officials to independently review subcontractor ownership information as part of DOE consent reviews and assess potential conflicts of interest to ensure contractors are mitigating them. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE did not concur with our recommendation; instead, they plan to issue guidance emphasizing the importance of contracting officers reviewing contractors' disclosing and dealing with issues created by close working relationships, conflicts of interest, or ownership affiliations between prime and subcontractor. We have identified complex relationships among DOE contractors and subcontractors that were not documented by DOE, as well as incidents involving subcontractors related to conflicts of interest that were not disclosed to DOE. We noted that DOE officials--including those in local offices--have access to several databases and other sources of information that would allow them to independently verify ownership information that could allow the local offices to identify potential conflicts of interest that were not disclosed. In July 2020, DOE issued guidance summarizing and reiterating existing regulations, policy and procedures that require DOE contracting officers to perform independent analyses when reviewing subcontract consent packages, contractor purchasing systems, and potential organizational conflicts of interest. However, this is the same as previous guidance and it does not include direction to review subcontractor ownership information.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require contracting officers to include assessments of the contractors' management of subcontractors as part of annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans, as appropriate. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with the recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and determine if additional guidance is needed to conduct an assessment of the contractors' management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans. As of June 2020, DOE officials said they have reviewed existing federal and departmental policies, procedures, and available tools and determined sufficient guidance exists for contracting officers to make informed decisions on whether to include contractor management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of a specific contract. DOE's Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan template provides a subcontractor management evaluation factor for use by contracting officers who have determined it is appropriate for their contracts. Although we recognize the value in deferring to contracting officers to determine whether the factor is appropriate based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of the contract, we continue to believe that DOE should place additional emphasis on the contractors' oversight of subcontracts by assessing the contractors on this factor.

Recommendation: The Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration should develop and document clear procedures for implementing NAP-4C, specifying the process for collecting contractor performance information and describing how officials are to ensure this information can be traced to rating determinations. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) concurred with the recommendation. In February 2020, NNSA issued its fiscal year 2020 Corporate Performance Evaluation Process Annual Implementation Guidance. This guidance included a new section specifying the process for collecting contractor performance information and further details regarding the preparation of interim feedback reports and final performance evaluation reports. However, the guidance is unclear regarding how this information can be traced to rating determinations. In order to provide more transparency and ensure this traceability, NNSA guidance and the Performance Evaluation Reports themselves should more clearly link how collected performance information tracks to rating determinations.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) partially concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, EERE officials stated that cost performance feedback was included in the 2019 final performance evaluation for the EERE Management and Operating contractor. EERE officials also stated that they had incorporated cost performance evaluation criteria into the fiscal year 2020 Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP) for NREL. EERE officials noted that these actions ensure cost performance will be included as part of the ongoing contractor evaluation process. We have requested documentation of the new PEMP and performance evaluation report and, in order to ensure cost performance evaluation criteria are included in the future, EERE should update its policy to require quality information on cost performance going forward.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Environmental Management
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Environmental Management (EM) concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, EM officials stated that they will include the requirement for quality information on cost performance in EM's Cleanup Project Management Policy. According to officials, EM is working on this policy, along with an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that they expect to complete by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Fossil Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, FE officials stated that they had revised and executed the Performance Evaluation and Measurements Plan (PEMP), for the current Management and Operating contract to add a new PEMP measure that addresses monitoring cost growth, additional activities in internal audit, and data quality that addresses our recommendation. We have requested documentation of the PEMP showing the new measures and an updated policy requiring inclusion of quality information on cost performance in Performance Evaulation Reports. Upon receiving those, we will review to determine if it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) concurred with the recommendation. In February 2020, NNSA issued its fiscal year 2020 Corporate Performance Evaluation Process Annual Implementation Guidance. This guidance provides instructions regarding the evaluation of cost performance, including examples of the types of cost information that should be collected and how cost data should be analyzed and described. However, the guidance's template for Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans does not include any explicit cost performance Objectives or Key Outcomes and it is unclear how the cost performance information discussed in the guidance would enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. In order to provide quality cost information that does enable such an overall assessment, NNSA should clarify its guidance regarding cost performance information and how this information links to overall Management and Operating contractor performance.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Nuclear Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) partially concurred with the recommendation. As of May 2020, NE officials stated that they will include criteria for "day-to-day" cost performance in the annual Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP) for fiscal year 2020. NE's evaluation of the contractor's performance against those criteria will be included in the year-end performance reports of its Management and Operating contractor beginning in fiscal year 2020. NE officials stated that modifying the fiscal year 2020 PEMP with added cost criteria, usually done in April, has been delayed due to COVID-19 and that they expect to complete the modification by the end of May 2020. Once the cost criteria are included and evaluated in the Performance Evaluation Report, we will review to determine if it addresses our recommendation. In addition to changes to the fiscal year 2020 report, NE should update its policy to require such criteria for evaluating contractor cost performance going forward.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Science should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Science
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Science (SC) partially concurred with the recommendation. In commenting on our report in August 2019, DOE stated that by focusing on the annual Performance Evaluation Reports (PER), our report does not capture the cost performance reviews conducted in day-to-day contract oversight, the annual laboratory planning process, and contract extend/compete decisions. In its comments, DOE stated that since SC conducts cost performance reviews in normal operations and at the year-end annual evaluation process, adequate information is available to assess whether the contractor cost performance is acceptable to the department. As of April 2020, SC had not updated these comments. In the report, we note that SC conducts some cost performance evaluation activities outside of the annual performance evaluation process, although we did not assess these efforts. While there may be adequate information available, SC does not commonly document this information or assessments from such activities in the PERs. We continue to believe that the PERs are important sources of information for contract management--particularly for acquisition decisions and oversight of spending on cost-reimbursement contracts--and that action is needed to improve these formal records of contractor performance. By not including quality information on overall cost performance and assessments in PERs, SC is missing a valuable opportunity to better document contractors' cost performance, improve acquisition decision-making, and strengthen oversight of billions of dollars in contracting. We continue to believe that it is important for SC to implement the recommendation and that by doing so, the office would have better assurance that Management and Operating contractor performance evaluations fully address required elements.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should explore the feasibility of requiring a corporate identification number in its inspection database and enabling its website to be searched by that number. This should include exploring the following issues: (1) which corporate identification number would be most appropriate to require; (2) options for obtaining this number from employers; and (3) options for entering this number in its database that would prevent or minimize delays in closing inspection records. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA did not state whether it agreed with this recommendation. The agency acknowledged the potential utility of obtaining a unique identifier from each employer and said it will continue to promote the collection of Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) or Tax Identification Numbers (TIN) whenever possible by issuing a revised memorandum to field staff to reinforce the importance of collecting this information. OSHA stated that it does not view EINs as confidential or protected from disclosure. However, it expressed concerns about protecting TINs and Social Security Numbers from disclosure, and noted that it would not be able to make a data field available for public search if it contained either of these numbers. OSHA also raised concerns about the financial cost associated with redesigning the agency's data system. We encourage OSHA to explore options for addressing these concerns as it further considers how to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should provide information to contracting officials to advise them that the OSHA website is a resource for information about contractors' workplace safety and health records. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and identified implementation timelines. We will monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should explore the feasibility of requiring a safety performance rating for contracts in industries that have relatively high rates of occupational injuries, such as manufacturing, construction, and ship building and repairing. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and identified implementation timelines. We will monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: The NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations should direct the Commercial Crew Program to include the results of its schedule risk analysis in its mandatory quarterly reports to Congress. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA did not concur with our recommendation that the Commercial Crew Program should include the results of its schedule analysis in its quarterly reports to Congress. In July 2019, NASA reaffirmed that it will be working to ensure that the contractors' schedules and the program's internal assessments sync up as the program gets closer to launch, which is the process it used in March 2019 leading up to SpaceX's uncrewed test flight. GAO continues to believe that the recommendation is valid because the program's schedule risk analysis would provide Congress with valuable insight into potential delays, which are likely.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should develop and maintain a contingency plan for ensuring a presence on the ISS until a Commercial Crew Program contractor is certified. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. NASA stated that it is in discussions with Russia to obtain additional seats on its Soyuz spacecraft for NASA crew as a contingency plan. NASA is also providing Extra-Vehicular Activity and robotics training for a subset of cosmonauts to support U.S. Operating Segment operations, and looking at a possible extension of the duration of the Space X Demonstration 2 crewed test flight. In November 2019, NASA reported that it completed its actions for this recommendation. However, while NASA is working on potential solutions, there is no contingency plan in place. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA needs to provide documentation of its contingency plan.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should direct the Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, the Commercial Crew Program Manager, and the Commercial Crew Program Contracting Officer to collectively determine and document before the agency certification review how the agency will determine its risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA partially concurred with our recommendation, stating it documented the agency's risk tolerance level with respect to loss of crew for the program in its May 2011 safety memo. NASA stated that ultimately the Commercial Crew Program is accountable for ensuring that the contractors' systems meet the loss of crew value of 1 in 270. In July 2019, the Commercial Crew Program noted that it will continue to determine its risk tolerance with respect to loss of crew and formally document its decisions at program management meetings. We continue to believe that, before agency certification, the key parties must collectively determine how the agency will determine its risk tolerance with response to loss of crew, as the risk tolerance for the loss of crew requirement depends on which entity is presenting the results of its analysis. We believe this approach will reduce confusion and increase transparency. In late September 2020, GAO received additional information from NASA on actions taken to implement this recommendation. We are currently assessing this information.

Recommendation: After completing the agency certification review, NASA's Chief Engineer and Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance, with support from the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and the Commercial Crew Program Manager, should document lessons learned related to loss of crew as a safety threshold for future crewed spaceflight missions, given the complexity of the metric. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA concurred with our recommendation to document lessons learned related to the loss of crew requirement. In June 2020, NASA told us that they expect to take action to close this recommendation by the end of May 2021.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should conduct periodic reviews of the processes DOD components follow to approve agreements and take oversight actions, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement a new standard operating procedure for DOD's Mentor-Protege Program component program managers. According to DOD, the new standard operating procedure would require each component program manager to provide quarterly program management review reports to DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, in addition to annual and monthly reporting, as required by Appendix I of DOD's policies and procedures for the Mentor-Protege Program. DOD's new Standard Operating Procedure would also centralize the implementation of the Mentor Protege Program and, according to DOD, would create process efficiency, and enhanced oversight of the program. The new Standard Operating Procedure would also include a new standardized checklist each Mentor-Protege Program component would utilize to approve mentor protege agreements. The standardized checklist would also include the company North American Industry Classification System code, a mentor approval letter, and a fully completed copy of the mentor protege agreement signed by both parties. Last, DOD would then determine program improvement, once the aforementioned controls are implemented and monitored for effectiveness. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should complete actions to develop performance goals and related measures that are consistent with the program's stated purpose.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that Mentor-Protege Program components would establish goals for the Mentor Protege Program and those goals would be focused on the Industrial Base and Technology Transfer categories. In addition, DOD stated that it would establish additional surveillance requirements to ensure prime and subcontract opportunities are afforded to the proteges and that instituting a baseline performance goal for all components will ensure the Program achieves the intent desired by Congress. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new goals or standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To gain visibility and enable efficient management on the use of bridge contracts in federal agencies, the Administrator of OFPP should take appropriate steps to develop a standardized definition for bridge contracts and incorporate it as appropriate into relevant FAR sections.

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 .

Recommendation: To gain visibility and enable efficient management on the use of bridge contracts in federal agencies, the Administrator of OFPP should, as an interim measure, until the FAR is amended, provide guidance to agencies on (1) a definition of bridge contracts, with consideration of contract extensions as well as stand-alone bridge contracts; and (2) suggestions for agencies to track and manage their use of these contracts, such as identifying a contract as a bridge in a Justification and Approval (J&A) when it meets the definition, and listing the history of previous extensions and stand-alone bridge contracts back to the predecessor contract in the J&A.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the internal control environment for oversight using information from CAS and develop a consistent approach to the use of information from CAS in M&O contractor oversight and performance evaluation across the nuclear security enterprise, the Administrator of NNSA should establish comprehensive NNSA policies and guidance, beyond a general framework as included in NAP-21, for using information from CAS to conduct oversight of M&O contractors, clarifying whether CAS is to cover mission-related activities, and describing how to conduct assessments of risk, CAS maturity, and the level of the contractor's past performance.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: We recommended that NNSA establish comprehensive policies and guidance, beyond a general framework, for using information from contractor assurance systems (CAS) to conduct oversight of management and operating (M&O) contractors, clarifying whether CAS is to cover mission-related activities and describing how to conduct assessments of risk, CAS maturity, and the level of the contractor's past performance. NNSA agreed with the recommendation and has taken an important step to revise its policy. However, NNSA needs to take additional action. Specifically, NNSA approved a revised corporate site governance policy in August 2016, and NNSA further revised its policy in October 2019. The revised policy improves on the agency's prior policy by clarifying one element in our recommendation that CAS is to cover mission-related activities. However the policy is still a general framework and NNSA has not established associated implementing guidance. Specifically, NNSA needs to develop guidance for NNSA headquarters' and field offices' procedures to use information from CAS and appropriately balance use of information from CAS with other more direct activities to oversee M&O contractors. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To improve management and oversight of the WOSB program, and to help ensure the effective oversight of third-party certifiers, the Administrator of SBA should establish and implement comprehensive procedures to monitor and assess performance of certifiers in accord with the requirements of the third-party certifier agreement and program regulations.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA has taken some actions. For example, SBA created a standard operating procedure stating that third-party certifiers are subject to a compliance review by SBA at any time, and SBA has completed a review of the four authorized third-party certifiers. We continue to monitor SBA actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve management and oversight of the WOSB program, and to provide reasonable assurance that only eligible businesses obtain WOSB set-aside contracts, the Administrator of SBA should enhance examination of businesses that register to participate in the WOSB program, including actions such as: (1) promptly completing the development of procedures to conduct annual eligibility examinations and implementing such procedures; (2) analyzing examination results and individual businesses found to be ineligible to better understand the cause of the high rate of ineligibility in annual reviews, and determine what actions are needed to address the causes; and (3) implementing ongoing reviews of a sample of all businesses that have represented their eligibility to participate in the program.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA has created a standard operating procedure that includes some procedures for annual eligibility examinations. We continue to monitor SBA actions to address this recommendation.