Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "IT management"
GAO-20-129, Oct 30, 2019
Phone: (202)512-4456
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Agriculture
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 Education
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 Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, the department reported actions it had taken to fully implement the activities associated with assessing competencies and needs regularly; assessing gaps in competencies and staffing; monitoring the agency's progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps; and reporting to agency leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps. The department also reported actions it had taken to address the remaining four activities and provided estimated time frames for fully implementing them. As of August 2020, we were following up with the department to obtain supporting documentation for the activities it claimed it had fully implemented and status updates for the remaining activities.
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: Department of the Interior
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
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 Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, Labor officials provided additional documentation on actions taken to address the recommendation. We plan to review the documentation, and when we confirm what actions the agency has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of State
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 Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
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: National Science Foundation
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: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In December 2019, OPM stated that it had partnered with the General Services Administration's IT Modernization Center of Excellence to assess the current state of its IT workforce planning activities, but had not yet implemented any of the eight key planning activities we recommended. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts to implement the recommendation.
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: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, Social Security Administration officials provided the agency's recently issued IT workforce strategy for fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2022. We plan to review the strategy, and when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-93, Aug 2, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency partially agreed with the recommendation, and planned to issue guidance that addressed eight of the 12 CIO responsibilities discussed in this report that were not included in existing OMB guidance. As of July 2020, the agency had not issued such guidance and asserted that its existing Circular A-130 guidance is adequate to address this recommendation. However, the Circular A-130 does not address these 12 CIO responsibilities. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation to define the authority that Chief Information Officers (CIOs) are to have when agencies report on CIO authority over information technology spending. However, as of July 2020, the agency had not updated its definition. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and, in May 2019, the agency revised its departmental policies to address 21 of the 22 responsibility gaps identified in the report. The remaining responsibility is for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to report annually to the head of the agency on progress made in improving IT personnel capabilities. In particular, while USDA's CIO is required to conduct an annual assessment on IT personnel, there is no indication that the results are reported to the agency head. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and, in October 2018, described a a number of steps it planned to take to address the responsibility gaps identified in the report. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will provide updated information when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: We will provide updated information when we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The department planned to complete several steps by the end of 2019. When we confirm these actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and revised its policies to address three of the 23 responsibility gaps identified in the report. In particular, it has addressed the responsibilities for the Chief Information Officer to: 1) report directly to the agency head or that official's deputy, 2) improve the management of the agency's IT through portfolio review (PortfolioStat), and 3) maintain an inventory of data centers. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address the remaining responsibilities.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation, and revised and provided additional departmental directives and delegations to address 19 of the 21 responsibility gaps identified in the report. The remaining responsibilities are for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to 1) review and approve IT contracts, acquisition plans, or strategies; and 2) ensure that all personnel are held accountable for complying with the agency-wide information security program. In particular, while the DHS CIO has the authority to coordinate with the Chief Acquisition Officer on acquisition strategies, coordination is not the same as reviewing and approving. Regarding holding agency personnel accountable for information security, DHS's Sensitive Systems Policy Directive gives that authority to the heads of DHS's components, rather than the DHS CIO. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address these requirements.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The department indicated that it has work underway to address this recommendation, which it plans to complete in March 2020. When we confirm those actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The department planned to review its policies and take corrective actions, as necessary. When we confirm those actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: Justice concurred with our recommendation and started work to address it. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Labor has taken a number of steps in response to this recommendation. However, the agency's policies did not address the six key areas of responsibility for CIOs.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The department has begun changing its policies to address this recommendation. When we review those changes, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: DOT agreed with many of the responsibilities in our recommendation, and in September 2019, the agency planned to leverage their technical infrastructure modernization initiative to further define the CIO responsibilities identified in the 18 responsibility gaps identified in the report. 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 Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation and, as of January 2020, is working to address the recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but agreed that CIO authorities should be adequately documented in appropriate policies. EPA officials have stated that they continue to work to address this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken to address the 20 responsibility gaps identified in the report, we will provide updated information.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with our recommendation and stated that the agency was updating its policies to address the responsibilities identified in the report. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: NSF agreed with our recommendations, and in February 2020, the agency issued a new CIO Authorities Policy and revised other departmental policies to address 22 of the 23 responsibility gaps identified in the report. The remaining responsibility for the CIO to benchmark agency processes against private and public sector performance has not been established through the agencies' policies. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to the remaining responsibility, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: NRC disagreed with our recommendation but generally agreed with our findings, and the agency had departmental policies to address three of the 15 responsibilities identified in the report. In March 2020, the agency stated it was identifying the appropriate agency policy to amend to address the remaining responsibility gaps. It anticipated that it would complete those updates by the end of the second quarter of FY 2020. We will continue to monitor the steps the agency takes to address this requirement.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM agreed with our recommendation. 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: SBA agreed with most of our recommendations and, in September 2018, the agency said it is revising its departmental policies to address the responsibility gaps identified in the report. SBA's Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) Strategic Plan's revised in 2019 addresses two of the 19 responsibility gaps identified in the report. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-326, May 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued an updated instruction on defense business systems requirements and acquisition, which included guidance on establishing baseline cost and schedule estimates and considering progress against the baselines at key decision points. However, the instruction does not make a distinction between initial and current baselines. Further, it did not include thresholds for cost and schedule variances or specify periodic reporting of program performance information to stakeholders. According to an official in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the office does not intend to add the elements of the recommendation related to thresholds and reporting. Specifically, according to the official, the office considers specifying predetermined threshold cost and schedule estimates and frequency for status reporting to be matters for implementation guidance issued by department components or determined by a program decision authority. However, until the department demonstrates that it has fully addressed the recommendation, it is limited in its ability to ensure that effective system acquisition management controls are implemented for each major business system investment and that stakeholders have the information needed to make informed decisions for managing and overseeing these investments. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, the Department of Defense had made progress addressing the intent of the recommendation related to requirements management; however, it needs to do more to improve DHMSM program risk management. Specifically, in March 2019, the DHMSM program manager approved a requirements management plan, which includes identifying and documenting changes that should be made to plans and work products resulting from changes to the baseline requirements. Specifically, it includes forward and backward configuration and change management of the baselined requirements and managing traceability of requirements to design artifacts, test cases, defects, and change requests. However, the program has not demonstrated that it quantifies costs and benefits of risk mitigation in its risk mitigation plans. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that it had updated its guidance to require that costs and benefits of risk mitigation plans be included in these plans. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
GAO-18-337, May 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA did not concur with this recommendation. As of October 2019, the agency reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer was beginning its involvement with the agency's Mission Support Architecture Program which aims at re-aligning mission support functions from a decentralized model to an enterprise model. The office's participation in the re-alignment effort has an estimated completion date in fiscal year 2023.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. In July 2018, NASA reported that the agency intended to address this recommendation by documenting its approach for governing IT investments. In February 2020, NASA reported that the agency remained committed to taking action to address this recommendation and reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer had established a process to govern IT investment funds and had planned additional modifications for that framework. The agency now expects to complete actions to address this recommendation by November 2020.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. In July 2018, NASA reported that it had begun updating policies and procedures for developing the portfolio criteria. In April 2019, NASA provided copies of its updated guidance. Among other things, the guidance described criteria for the portfolio and defined policies and procedures for creating the portfolio. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided evidence that it had developed policies and procedures for evaluating the portfolio. We plan to continue following up on the status of efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. In July 2018, NASA reported that it had hired a Chief Cybersecurity Risk Officer in April 2018 and that it had also approved a charter for an agency-wide Cybersecurity Integration Team. As of September 2020, NASA reported that it intends to deliver a cybersecurity risk management strategy that addresses the elements outlined in this recommendation by 2021.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, NASA reported that the Chief Information Officer had initiated a review of the agency's cyber policy management framework and that any related updates were expected to be completed by 2021.
GAO-18-30, Nov 8, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Office of Response and Recovery: Assistant Administrator for Recovery
Status: Open
Comments: FEMA concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of September 2018, officials reported completing activities to develop disaster-specific mitigation performance measures that align with strategic goals and analyzed available data to identify the drivers of mitigation in events of various sizes. Due to hiring delays associated with the establishment of the 406 Mitigation Branch, officials have extended the expected completion date for all actions, including proposing refined performance measures to FEMA senior leadership, to the end of January 2019. As of December 2019, GAO is awaiting a response from FEMA on their progress completing these actions.
GAO-17-267, Aug 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the Grants and Member Management (GMM) system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet defined requirements for the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the GMM system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a COTS application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet established a project schedule for completing the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, CNCS officials stated that the agency made the decision to terminate the development of the GMM system. They subsequently awarded a contract to assess the state of development for the GMM system and to provide recommendations on the actions CNCS needed to take in order to implement a COTS application for core grants management functions. According to CNCS officials, based on the findings from that assessment, further investments in developing customized applications (even an implementation of a COTS application) were not likely to be successful. As of September 2019, CNCS officials stated that they were pursuing the option of a federal shared service as a solution to grants management. As of November 2019, according to CNCS officials, the agency had not yet established a timeframe to define test plans for the selected solution for the grant monitoring system project because the decision to pursue the federal shared services as a solution for grants management is very recent. CNCS officials agreed to provide GAO with an update as further progress is made on this recommendation.
GAO-17-284, May 18, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In 2018 and 2019, the DHS Office of the Chief Information Officer implemented a Strategic Workforce Planning initiative that included (1) identifying the department's future IT skillset needs, and (2) conducting a skills gap analysis related to these needs. The department is currently working to resolve the skills gaps identified during the initiative. We will continue to monitor and evaluate the Department's efforts to resolve these skills gaps.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In response to our recommendation, DHS updated its agile development policy to specify that the DHS CIO is responsible for certifying investments' incremental development activities, which is consistent with the Department's Acquisition Management Instruction. However, DHS has not yet updated its Systems Engineering Life Cycle Instruction and Guidebook to be consistent in specifying that this certification is the responsibility of the DHS CIO. We will continue to monitor the Department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In response to our recommendation, Customs and Border Protection implemented a process to track the IT investments associated with each contract and agreement. The U.S. Coast Guard also implemented a process to track the IT investments associated with its contracts; however, it has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented such a process for tracking the IT investments associated with its agreements. Further, DHS headquarters is still working to establish a process for tracking the IT investments associated with its contracts and agreements. We will continue to monitor and evaluate the Department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation. In May 2020, DHS officials stated that the Office of the CIO began piloting a new program health assessment process in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020, and DHS intends to report the program ratings resulting from that process to the IT Dashboard. We will continue to monitor and evaluate the Department's efforts to implement this new process.
GAO-16-656, Jul 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had collaborated through an IT technical assessment initiative, identifying four primary financial management modernization initiatives remaining from the New Core Program. In July 2020, HUD officials, including the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, provided a roadmap that defined a high-level depiction of the financial management systems anticipated in the future state. However, the department had not yet completed more detailed plans that (1) identify operations that must be performed and who must perform them and (2) explain where and how operations are to be carried out. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization. As of July 2020, the department had begun taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, HUD planned to integrate loan and property management into its current financial management shared service and had begun planning for how to modernize its budget formulation and cost accounting systems. For the budget formulation effort, HUD had developed high-level plans for the scope of the program, planned an implementation schedule, and estimated on the cost for implementation and operating and maintaining the system for two years. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In March 2017, the department reported that the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Information Officer intended to partner on future departmental financial management systems modernization efforts to fully document requirements and trace requirements to the functionality in the modernized system. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. As of July 2020, HUD was in the early phases of planning for modernization in these areas. According to officials from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the department intended to address this recommendation for budget formulation modernization by developing applicable plans and artifacts for managing requirements from the department's project planning and management framework. However, that effort has not yet started. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. Since 2016, HUD has revised its IT governance boards, which provide oversight of all its IT investments, including financial management initiatives, several times. While the department has not yet completed those improvement efforts, HUD updated its project planning and management framework to tailor requirements and artifacts for different program types. According to an official from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, updates to the requirements for shared services projects incorporated lessons learned from the New Core program. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. Officials from both offices have described improvements in their coordination and collaboration on efforts to plan for modernization. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions to ensure that planned improvements to governance and oversight mechanisms are effectively implemented and institutionalized.
GAO-15-56, Dec 10, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD has not provided information demonstrating that the department has addressed this recommendation. HUD reported that it established a new executive-level investment review board (i.e. the Executive Operations Committee) that replaced the board discussed in our report. The department also provide evidence of the board's initial governance activities, including providing criteria to guide board decision-making in January 2017. However, the board has not continued to meet and act in accordance with its charter. In April 2019, HUD reported that it was updating its governance process and charters and stated an intent to ensure that executive-level decision making is clearly defined including when a decision needs to be made, at what level that decision needs to be made, what criteria should be used, and how that decision will be communicated. HUD has not yet provided evidence that the updated governance process and charter have been finalized and implemented.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The department has taken steps to address this recommendation. In 2015, HUD updated its Project Planning and Management policy. Since that time, the department has developed additional policies (e.g., IT risk management policy), revised policies for the IT management framework and Agile development, and reported that it reviewed OCIO's existing policies in September 2018. In October 2018, HUD provided a copy of the draft of the revisions to its IT Management Framework (dated February 2018) and OCIO reported plans to continue developing and maintaining IT policies for each of the framework's elements and to review policies for currency annually on the anniversary date of the policy. As of March 2019, HUD reported that a central repository had been developed to store, track and monitor policy reviews. GAO is seeking additional evidence from the newly implemented policy review process.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD has provided information demonstrating that the department has addressed elements of this recommendation. In 2015, HUD reported that it had begun using a new tool to support its IT selection process. In May 2018, the department provided a demonstration of its HUD PLUS tool, including how it had used the tool to automate its selection process. The officials demonstrated how the tool is being used to review proposed projects. They reported that segment sponsors are responsible for validating data submitted but have not provided evidence that the department has developed guidance for that process. The officials demonstrated how the tool supports analysis of investment costs, schedule, and risk. They also demonstrated how the tool helps the Office of the Chief Information Officer compare investments based on cost and showed how decision makers access information and can perform analysis for all projects in the system. Department officials have not yet provided evidence that HUD has improved each of the areas noted in our recommendation. OCIO reported in April 2019 that it intends to: conduct the selection process on a more frequent basis and allow more time for annual budget considerations, improve performance metrics, and further incorporate cost-benefit analysis. OCIO also reported that it intends to better incorporate its management and oversight of the portfolio into a more formal "re-select" process. OCIO also reported that HUD was updating its governance policies to detail the criteria, data, and process used to select investments and targeting action to close this recommendation in 2019.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The department has taken steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in April 2016, HUD provided examples of cost savings that the department had identified by "scrubbing" existing contracts during the budget formulation process, along with copies of a template that it designed and used to help identify such savings. In May 2018, department officials provided a demonstration of the HUD PLUS tool, including screens staff could use to report cost savings and avoidances related to specific projects--although they reported that HUD was not yet using that functionality. In April 2019, OCIO reported that HUD was updating its governance process and charters to ensure that executive-level decision making will be clearly defined. OCIO also reported an intent to implement Technology Business Management to, among other things, improve and expand the tracking of investments. HUD expects these two efforts to facilitate better tracking of the savings and efficiencies resulting from IT decisions. The department has not yet provided evidence that it has established guidance supporting a repeatable process for tracking enterprise-wide IT related cost savings and operational efficiencies, including those related to HUD's governance decisions.
GAO-12-346, Mar 15, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In 2018, we confirmed that FDA, in response to our recommendation, began efforts to identify which legacy systems will be replaced. FDA also developed an IMS for fiscal year (FY) 2017 and 2018 that identifies current and future tasks to be performed by contractors and FDA. However, FDA's IMS for FY 2017 and 2018 does not fully and clearly define resources. For example, although the FY 2017 IMS includes 265 names, roles, and teams, only 16 percent of activities have resource assignments. Further, FDA's fiscal year 2018 IMS does not fully define critical dependencies. For example, there are 14 activities and milestones with finish dates that are not properly tied to logic. Specifically, the finish dates of the 14 activities are not clearly tied to succeeding activities in the schedule. We contacted FDA in September and December 2019 and January 2020 for an update on the actions taken to implement the recommendation, but have not received a response. We will update the recommendation when additional information is obtained.