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: "Information technology"
GAO-20-567, Sep 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
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 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 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 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 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 Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
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 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 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 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 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
GAO-20-252, Sep 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6151
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-179, Sep 9, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-598, Aug 18, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Indian Health Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Indian Health Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Indian Health Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-627, Jul 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration agreed with the recommendation but has not yet taken actions to implement it.
GAO-20-562, Jul 16, 2020
Phone: (206) 287-4804
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-213, Jun 1, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-418, Apr 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that it had intended to convene an IT working group to reassess the methodology and begin detailed IT consolidation planning, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed this plan. DOD also said that the working group will form as soon as conditions allow and estimated that the working group will complete its work by October 31, 2020. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. In its written comments on our report, DOD stated that all the submitted comments were considered in the department's decision-making process; that all of the military department secretariats agreed with above-store consolidation, despite their comments on the business case analysis; and that the military department comments regarding the business case analysis were shared with congressional committee professional staff, even though the comments were not included in DOD's report to Congress so as to protect the department's deliberative process. In an August 2020 memorandum to GAO, DOD provided similar comments, stating that it considered all comments in its decision-making process and did not attach the comments to its report to Congress in order to protect DOD's internal deliberations. If DOD takes action to respond to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-322, Apr 23, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-155, Apr 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the department's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address it.
GAO-20-404, Apr 3, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: TSA concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it by updating the BASE Cybersecurity Security Action Item section to ensure it reflects the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Detect and Recover functions. When we confirm what actions TSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-329, Mar 30, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior, on behalf of BLM, did not concur with this recommendation. As of August 2020, BLM has not taken steps to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior, on behalf of BLM, did not concur with this recommendation--although, it did state that it agreed with the premise of the need to further improve its formal change management procedures. As of August 2020, BLM has not taken actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior, on behalf of BLM, agreed with this recommendation. In its agency comment letter, the Department said that the BLM AFMSS team would implement adjustments and improvement based on the collected lessons learned. They also stated that upon completion of the last Field Office implementation and conversion to AFMSS II, BLM will conduct a formal program review and an annual operational assessment, which will also present opportunities for annual corrective actions and additional lessons learned considerations. As of August 2020, BLM has not taken actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-20-279, Mar 5, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken action to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) agreed with our recommendation and stated that it planned to meet the cost savings target in 2020. We will continue to monitor Agriculture's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described actions that they planned to take in order to address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor Commerce's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described actions that they planned to take in order to address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor Commerce's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In comments on our report, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) agreed with our recommendation and described actions that the agency planned to take to address the recommendation. NASA stated that it expected to complete these actions by March 31, 2020. Once we have obtained and assessed evidence of the agency's actions taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-20-299, Feb 25, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in July 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. It noted that to further establish its Cybersecurity Measurement program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will document its Cybersecurity Measurement program's scope, objectives, and approach, including an inventory of existing measurement resources. Additionally, to further amplify small business awareness of cybersecurity, and of the Cybersecurity Framework, it noted that NIST will develop and publish two Cybersecurity Framework starter profiles tailored toward risk management of business processes important to small business owners. The expected completion date is September 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in April 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that it concurred with our recommendation. The department stated that it routinely shared framework guidance provided by the Department of Homeland Security and discussed the framework as part of its monthly Sector conference calls and biannual Sector Meetings. It also added that the department will continue to strengthen its coordination efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in July 2020, the Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation. The department noted that it had developed processes and resources to help determine the type of framework adoption across the Defense Industrial Base. These include conducting assessments on the implementation of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171 , "Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations;" and releasing the Defense Industrial Base Implementation Guide for the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. However, the department has yet to report on sector-wide improvements using these processes and resources. Until it does so, its critical infrastructure sector may not fully understand the value of the framework to better protect its critical infrastructure from cyber threats. The expected completion dates are in September and November 2020.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in February 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it partially agreed with our recommendation. It noted that DOE will coordinate with the Energy Sector to develop an understanding of sector-wide improvements from use of the framework. The expected completion date is December 2021.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in July 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. It noted that it will consult with the Water Sector Coordinating Council, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as appropriate, to investigate options to collect and report sector-wide improvements, consistent with statutory requirements and the Sector's willingness to participate. However, the department did not provide a timeframe for completing these actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2020, the General Services Administration (GSA), in coordination with its co-SSA, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), provided documentation demonstrating that it had initiated steps to collect and report on sector-wide improvements from use of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework across its critical infrastructure sector. Specifically, the agencies from the government sector had submitted their risk management reports to DHS and OMB that described agencies' action plans to implement the framework, as required under Executive Order 13800 and evaluated the agencies against the five functions of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework: Identify, Detect, Protect, Respond, and Recover. The risk management reports are included as part of OMB's FISMA Annual Report to Congress. According to OMB's FISMA Annual Report to Congress, OMB and DHS determined that 71 of 96 agencies (74 percent) have cybersecurity programs that are either at risk or high risk. As a result, improvements were identified in the form of four core actions in the Federal Cybersecurity Risk Determination Report and Action Plan, which include: (1) Implementing the Cyber Threat Framework to increase cybersecurity threat awareness among Federal agencies, (2) Standardize IT and cybersecurity capabilities, (3) Consolidate agency SOCs to improve incident detection and response capabilities, and (4) Drive accountability across agencies through improved governance processes, recurring risk assessments, and OMB's engagements with agency leadership. We are waiting for additional information from GSA and DHS on the status of the four core actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated that it concurred with our recommendation. The department noted that it would work with the appropriate entities to refine and communicate best practices to the sector.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in February 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. It noted that in coordination with the IT Sector Coordinating Council, the department recently issued a survey to small and mid-sized IT sector partners to better understand framework adoption and use within the IT sector. Once the results of the survey are received, DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will determine the feasibility of issuing similar surveys to other sectors, and the potential timelines for completing sector-specific survey modifications, issuing surveys, compiling responses, and developing white papers on the status of framework adoption for each sector. The department expects completion of this work by December 31, 2021.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in April 2020, the Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that it concurred with our recommendation. It noted that the department (through the Office of the Secretary, Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response) and the Department of Homeland Security (through the Transportation Security Administration and United States Coast Guard) will coordinate as Co-Sector-Specific Agencies for the Transportation Systems Sector to finalize the development and distribution of a survey instrument to determine the level and type of framework adoption in the Sector. The department expects completion of this work by December 31, 2021.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments provided in January 2020, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. The department noted that it will assess using the identified initiatives and their viability for collecting and reporting sector-wide improvements from the use of the NIST Framework. The department did not provide a timeframe for completing these actions.
GAO-20-103, Feb 25, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, IRS disagrees with this recommendation and does not plan to take action on it. IRS officials said their Chief Counsel Directives Manual provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to allow for enhanced collaboration when appropriate. However, officials acknowledged that this collaboration was particularly helpful in implementing TCJA provisions and greatly contributed to IRS's successful implementation. By implementing this recommendation, IRS can help ensure that institutional knowledge and beneficial practices from TCJA implementation will be documented and effectively leveraged to support implementation of future time-sensitive or complex tax law changes without restricting IRS's flexibility. Documenting procedures would ensure IRS can retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, IRS disagrees with this recommendation and does not plan to take action on it. IRS officials acknowledged inconsistencies in reports but said these inconsistencies were not detrimental to overall implementation. We maintain that accurately and thoroughly capturing implementation status on ongoing projects would provide accurate information to decision makers and could prevent potential misreporting, mismanagement, or inefficient resource investment in the future.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, IRS disagrees with this recommendation and does not plan to take action on it. IRS officials said the retroactive transcription of TCJA returns would be a time intensive activity with significant opportunity costs, and that the benefits of retroactive transcription are currently not quantifiable. A high-level analysis of costs and benefits could help IRS management determine what, if any, data would benefit compliance and enforcement efforts. IRS could use readily available existing information (such as the number of returns affected by a certain provision, LB&I and IT cost data on conversion efforts already implemented, or the usefulness of past compliance analytics in similar areas) to inform the analysis. For example, IRS staff are manually reviewing certain forms associated with one TCJA provision for compliance purposes and IRS could use information from this effort (e.g., amount of time and any compliance results) to inform a high-level estimate of costs and benefits.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, IRS disagrees with this recommendation and does not plan to take action on it. IRS officials said that implementing this recommendation would require identifying the costs and benefits, which they do not plan to take action on. However, IRS officials acknowledged that IRS operating divisions and offices make strategic decisions regarding how best to use TCJA-related return data for compliance and enforcement purposes. We believe that converting data in instances where the benefits outweigh the costs would better position IRS to more effectively and efficiently pursue its mission of ensuring taxpayer compliance. For example, in the case of one TJCA provision, because IRS is not collecting information in an easily accessible format, IRS staff are manually reviewing forms to help with compliance efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy)
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, Treasury disagrees with this recommendation and does not plan to take action on it. Treasury officials said the analyses underlying Treasury's tax regulations have fully complied with the Memorandum of Agreement established with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which focuses on non-revenue effects. We maintain that decisions Treasury and IRS made when developing regulations to implement TCJA could potentially impact tax liability by billions of dollars per year; however, Treasury's internal guidance dictates that these revenue effects should not be included in its economic analyses of the regulations. In some regulations, Treasury has addressed revenue effects in its analyses, but this has not been done consistently. By adjusting its internal guidance to ensure that distributional effects of revenue changes are consistently reflected in its analyses, it would better inform the regulatory decision-making process, while also providing the public with greater transparency.
GAO-20-243, Feb 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, USDA officials agreed with our recommendation and stated that the department is evaluating options for the development of performance metrics and inclusion of these metrics and related information as part of the regular and recurring reviews by the department's Deputy Secretary who is identified as the Chief Operating Officer.
GAO-20-267, Feb 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. Specifically, in March 2020 CISA finalized its operations plan for the 2020 elections. CISA's operations plan addresses one of the 13 objectives and key actions from the strategic plan -- monitor threat activity. While CISA's operations plan is to supplement the agency's strategy, the plan does not fully address any of the four lines of effort and the other 12 objectives outlined in the strategic plan. When examining the key actions for the remaining 12 objectives in the strategic plan, we were only able to confirm that 10 of the 27 key actions called for in those strategic plan objectives were fully addressed. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. We reported in February 2020 that CISA's strategic plan had only addressed three challenges from its external lessons learned review. Subsequently, CISA addressed two additional challenges in its operations plan, which was finalized in March 2020, and its election infrastructure subsector specific plan, which was updated in March 2020. CISA's plans addressed challenges regarding the agency's role in sharing and collecting intelligence across the election community and facilitating industry-wide vulnerability disclosures. However, CISA has not documented how the agency intends to address other identified challenges and how it will incorporate remedial actions into the agency's 2020 planning. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
GAO-20-133, Feb 4, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6240
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: DHS has drafted a preliminary strategy to independently validate agencies' actions, using a risk-based approach. However, this strategy has not yet been finalized and needs to more clearly align to the existing directive development process, to which it serves as an addendum. The strategy should include when and how primary and secondary sources of information for independent validation are selected within the directive development process.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-186, Jan 23, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7114
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: 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.
GAO-20-222, Dec 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they will be implementing a policy to ensure that project planning steps, including a schedule of tasks, will be included and documented for future IT projects.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they have hired a contractor to assist with various risk management activities related to OCWR's permanent records retention program, including identifying and assessing risks and developing policies and procedures to address any risks.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they are reassessing desired performance results, developing new performance measures to monitor progress towards those results, and will clearly report OCWR's progress in future annual reports.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. According to OCWR officials, they are working with congressional oversight committees and covered legislative branch offices to obtain data through surveys or other methods that will enable them to evaluate the effectiveness and coverage of OCWR's education and outreach efforts.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials stated that they intend to revise the agency's strategic plan, including integrating IT planning and implementation into the strategic planning process, after they gain more experience with the new procedures required by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) Reform Act of 2018.
Agency: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. OCWR officials reported that they hired a contractor to better incorporate key management practices, such as developing strategies for recruiting and retaining staff with mission-critical skills, into OCWR's human capital plan and strategic planning process.
GAO-20-126, Dec 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of the Director
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the office has not provided information on its actions to implement our recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, OMB needs to collect data on the extent to which federal agencies are using cloud services authorized outside of FedRAMP and oversee agencies' compliance with using the program. According to an OMB Associate General Counsel, the agency does not have a mechanism for enforcing agencies' compliance with its guidance on FedRAMP. However, we believe that OMB can and should hold agencies accountable for complying with its policies. By implementing this recommendation, OMB could substantially improve participation in the FedRAMP program, which is intended to standardize security requirements for federal agencies' authorizations of cloud services. We will update the status of this recommendation when OMB provides information on its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, GSA has not provided evidence to close this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when GSA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, CDC stated it has taken actions to address our recommendations, but we have not received evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status once CDC provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, HHS stated CMS took actions to close this recommendation, but CMS has not yet provided evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when CMS provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NIH stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. NIH stated it will provide an update in December 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when NIH provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking actions to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, EPA stated it is taking action to address this recommendation, but the agency did not provide evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any evidence of its corrective actions. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA did not concur with this recommendation and as of September 2020, the agency has not provided any additional evidence. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress and update the recommendation's status when EPA provides its corrective actions.
GAO-20-65, Nov 1, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) provides detailed cost and rate information to customers each year in multiple venues and would reach out to customers to obtain additional details to understand how to fill the information gap regarding rate transparency. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DFAS's corrective action plan, which stated that DFAS Client Executives would ask the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps lead Financial Managers for feedback on additional details needed to better plan for the DFAS bill. DFAS would then incorporate this additional detail into the customer bill briefings for the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2022. DFAS also stated that the Air Force had indicated that DFAS provides appropriate transparency, but had requested that DFAS provide its bill estimate earlier, which DFAS had agreed to do.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Information Systems Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) will make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure the correct people have a full understanding of DISA's methodologies used to develop their rates. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DISA's corrective action plan, which stated that DISA would continue to make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure an increased understanding of methodologies used to develop the rates. In this plan, DISA reported that, in February and March 2020, its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) coordinated with the communications and financial management senior leadership for the military services to discuss Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) rate methodology and transparency. In May 2020, DOD provided an updated status on this recommendation, stating that a result of the DISA CFO outreach was that DISA would use the regular and recurring DISA Drumbeat engagements with the military departments to present and maintain an open and transparent dialogue on DISA DWCF rates. GAO requested documentation for the recent Navy and Air Force Drumbeat meetings and the pending Army meeting, as well as recent rate briefings that document that DISA is providing this more complete rate-setting information to its customers. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) would include more detailed information in its annual rate briefing to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the services regarding what is in its costs, how it calculates costs, and how and when changes would impact customers' overall costs. In addition, DLA stated that it conducts semiannual Cost Summits and periodic DLA/Service Days with customers. DLA said it would include discussions, as appropriate, of topics such as potential pricing methodology changes and estimated cost impacts to customers, well in advance of implementation. In March 2020, DLA notified GAO that it had discussed cost rates with the military services during the January 2020 DLA Cost Summit and the Service Days with each of the military services that it held in June and November 2019. GAO requested documentation for these five meetings that includes the more complete information on DLA's rate-setting methodologies that GAO identified in the recommendation. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.
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-20-146, Oct 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
- acquisition and contracting approach;
- program management structure, including authorities and oversight responsibilities;
- plans for platform and infrastructure development;
- requirements management and development approach, and plans for prioritization;
- risk management plans, including how the program will identify and mitigate risks;
- metrics for measuring quality of software, and how those results will be shared with external stakeholders;
- manpower assessment identifying program workforce needs and state of expertise in Agile methods;
- requirements for reporting program progress to decision makers; and
- yearly funding levels. (Recommendation 1)
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment directed the Air Force (this work has now been moved to the Space Force) to provide an Acquisition Strategy for approval in November 2019. DOD noted that a strategy template provided to the Air Force included the elements identified by GAO. As of July 2020, the Acquisition Strategy had been submitted to the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, but officials stated that the strategy is still in review and has not yet been finalized.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will assess the need for future periodic and independent reviews of the program. As of July 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it had planned to direct an independent review of the program to be conducted by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center and to be completed by September 2020. However, lack of funding and restrictions related to COVID-19 impacted planning. The office still plans to direct this review, but details are pending.
GAO-20-8, Oct 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: CMS concurred with our recommendation. In February 2020, CMS told us that it plans to reach out to states that have not yet participated in its optional consultations to discuss their progress towards implementing provider screening and enrollment requirements, and outline steps that the states should take to come into full compliance with them. In order to fully address this recommendation CMS would need to review all states' implementation of the provider screening and enrollment requirements, including states that have not made use of CMS's optional consultations. As such, this recommendation remains open until CMS provides evidence that it has assessed the compliance of all states; we will continue to monitor CMS's progress.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has reported that the Caregiver Support Program Office had identified a solution for identifying VHA Family Caregiver Program staff in the Human Resource (HR) Smart system. VHA reported that current full- and part-time employees funded by the Caregiver Support Program Office will be identified with a specific specialty code in HR Smart. However, as of April 2020, this capability was not yet available in HR Smart and staffing for the program continued to be manually updated and tracked. Further, the proposed use of HR Smart will still not result in complete information that the Caregiver Support Program Office can use to track all staff who support the program because according to VHA, staff that assist the program as a collateral duty and VAMC-funded staff who support the program will not be tracked through HR Smart. As of July 2020, this recommendation remains open pending further updates from VHA.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) reported that the Caregiver Support Program Office had identified a solution for identifying full-time VHA Family Caregiver Program staff in the Human Resource (HR) Smart system through the use of a specific specialty code. VHA reported that once implemented, the use of the HR SMART specialty code would provide more accurate information regarding staffing. In April 2020, VHA stated that were would also be a static field called "position skill type" that would track positions with a skill type category of caregiver and that Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) leads for the Family Caregiver Program would use this field to cross check the new specialty code and identify and correct any reporting inconsistencies. As of July 2020, this recommendation remains open pending further updates from VHA.
GAO-19-457, Sep 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation and as of July 2020 has not yet implemented it. According to a December 2019 department letter provided to GAO, the 20 percent software release target is unlikely achievable due to the nature of code that is custom developed by the department. However, the department is mandated by law to implement the open source software pilot program established by the Office of Management and Budget's memorandum M-16-21. Releasing at least 20 percent of newly custom-developed code is a requirement of this program. GAO will continue to follow-up on the status of the pilot program.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially agreed with this recommendation and as of July 2020 has not yet implemented it. According to a December 2019 department letter sent to GAO, the department intends to release updated guidance on the release of custom-developed code as open-source software and will include metrics. The department estimated that the updated policy will be completed in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2020. GAO will follow-up with the agency to obtain the status of the updated guidance.
GAO-19-488, Jun 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of May 2020, the Bureau's program risk registers included a clear indication of the status of mitigation plans; however, the Bureau's portfolio risk register did not, without which there was not a clear indication of which portfolio risk mitigation plans had been approved by management. As of August 2020, the Bureau's portfolio risk register also included a clear indication of mitigation plan status. At that time, we reviewed the Bureau's program and portfolio risk registers to determine whether the Bureau had developed and obtained management approval of mitigation and contingency plans for all risks that required them. We found six risks that met the Bureau's requirements for a contingency plan but did not have an approved contingency plan in place. We notified the Bureau and asked them to ensure that approved mitigation and contingency plans were in place for all risks that required them. We will continue to monitor the Bureau's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, the Bureau updated its decennial risk management plan and, in doing so, implemented this recommendation for six of the seven key attributes we identified. The missing attribute was monitoring plans: a description in each mitigation and contingency plan of how the agency will monitor the risk response-with performance measures and milestones, where appropriate-to help track whether the plan is working as intended. According to Bureau officials, rather than requiring this attribute, they instead noted it as a lesson learned for the 2030 Census and documented it in their knowledge management tool. In August 2020, we requested documentation of these actions. Once received, we will assess whether these actions suffice to close the recommendation.
GAO-19-288, May 17, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9342
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS, on behalf of CMS, did not concur with this recommendation. In its February 2020 response to GAO, HHS stated that current NIST guidance to agencies was insufficient and that CMS would look forward to future guidance from NIST and OMB to help guide consideration of non-knowledge-based verification options. We continue to believe that our recommendation is valid because a variety of alternative methods to knowledge-based verification are available that CMS can consider to address the diverse population it serves. Further, NIST has agreed with our recommendation to develop additional guidance for agencies, and CMS may be able to use that guidance to identify a verification approach that does not really on knowledge-based techniques. We will continue to monitor the actions CMS may take to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, VA needs to develop a plan with milestones to document the results of their evaluation of the alternatives the department stated it is interested in pursuing.
GAO-19-431T, Apr 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with our recommendation. It provided an action plan in August 2019. We will review the Bureau's progress in addressing this recommendation as part of our ongoing work on the 2020 Census.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with our recommendation. In August 2019, the Bureau stated that it is developing a process for tracking and executing corrective actions identified by governing bodies and external entities. We will review the Bureau's progress in addressing this recommendation as part of our ongoing work on the 2020 Census.
GAO-19-164, Apr 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement it.
GAO-19-58, Apr 4, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a mechanism to track savings to implement this recommendation. Specifically, Agriculture officials reported in April 2020 that the department had established an office to assist with cloud migration efforts and instituted a process that requires cloud migration efforts to submit cost data and report cloud savings in accordance with OMB guidance. Officials noted that the department would implement a mechanism within one year once OMB issues guidance related to tracking savings (OMB has not yet implemented guidance in this area). We will continue to monitor Agriculture's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a mechanism to track savings to implement this recommendation. In October 2019, Commerce officials noted that the department would update its current procedures related to tracking savings and cost avoidances within one year once OMB issues guidance related to tracking cloud savings (OMB has not yet implemented guidance in this area). As of May 2020, the procedures have not yet been updated. We will continue to monitor Commerce's progress with these efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (Defense) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department planned to publish guidance in this area. Specifically, in April 2020, Defense officials reported that the department planned to publish guidance by July 2020 that required all department components to rationalize business and IT applications in alignment with the department's enterprise-wide process for conducting software application rationalization and the department's Cloud Strategy. We will continue to monitor Defense's progress on this effort.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Defense (Defense) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. We will continue to monitor Defense's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would complete an assessment of all IT investments for cloud services. In February 2020, Education officials reported that the department had taken action to update its guidance to include a requirement for assessing new and existing investments for cloud services. However, as of May 2020, based on our review of IT Dashboard data, Education has not yet completed an assessment of 23 investments for these services. We will continue to monitor Education's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would take action to address it. In May 2020, Education officials reported that the department had taken steps to identify a number of cloud investments with cost savings and avoidance data as a part of the integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Education's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would update its IT budget guidance to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials provided a portion of a guidance document, but it did not include language that addressed our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would update its IT budget guidance to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials provided a portion of a guidance document, but it did not include language on assessing investments for cloud services. In addition, as of May 2020, based on our review of data on the IT Dashboard, Energy has not yet completed an assessment of 107 investments for these services. We will continue to monitor Energy's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would establish a mechanism to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials reported that they had identified a number of cloud investments with cost savings as part of the integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Energy's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the CIO would revise its guidance by September 30, 2019 to address it. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from HHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would complete an assessment of all IT investments as part of its portfolio review for fiscal year 2021. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from HHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would take action to track savings as part of its portfolio review process for fiscal year 2021. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from HHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department was taking steps to implement it. Specifically, in October 2019, DHS officials reported that the department was in the process of accessing its remaining systems to determine whether a cloud computing assessment should be completed but did not provide a date when this effort would be finished. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from DHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department was taking steps to implement it. Specifically, in October 2019, DHS officials reported that the department was working on a plan to define the resources and processes needed to implement a mechanism to track savings that would be completed by October 2020. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from DHS regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (Justice) concurred with our recommendation, and stated that it would require components to assess all investments for cloud. However as of April 2020, based on our review of IT Dashboard data, Justice had not yet completed cloud assessments for 80 investments. We will continue to monitor Justice's progress with this effort.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (Justice) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would take action to address it. In December 2019, Justice officials reported that the department had taken steps to identify cloud investments and related savings data as part of an integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Justice's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department was taking steps to integrate a process for assessing investments for cloud computing suitability into its budgeting process. Specifically, in February 2020, Labor officials reported that the department was updating its policy to reflect a Cloud First policy that will ensure that all department investment migrations to cloud services are Cloud smart but did not identify a time frame when the policy would be finalized. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department planned to undertake a full review of data center-based applications for cloud suitability. Specifically, in February 2020, Labor officials reported that the department had created an Engineering Review Board in October 2019 to review proposed IT investments to ensure compliance with the department's cloud architecture, but did not provide a time frame for when all assessments of investments would be completed. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (Labor) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a mechanism to track savings to implement this recommendation. Specifically, in February 2020, Labor officials reported that the department was implementing a tool called Cloudchekr for tracking costs associated with cloud services that would also track related savings and cost avoidances, but no timeframe was provided for when the tool would consistently capture all savings from these efforts. We will continue to monitor Labor's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would develop a prototype tracking system ready for testing by the beginning of fiscal year 2020. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from State regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor State's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. As of May 2020, we have not received any update from the department regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not yet taken any actions to implement our recommendation. As of May 2020, we have not received any update from the department regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) concurred with our recommendation but as of May 2020, has not yet taken any actions to implement it. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) concurred with our recommendation but as of May 2020, has not yet taken any actions to implement it. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) concurred with our recommendation, but as of May 2020, has not yet taken any actions to implement it. We will continue to monitor Transportation's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would take action to address it. In February 2020, VA officials reported that the department had begun an assessment process and expected to complete this effort by June 30, 2024. We will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would take action to address it. In February 2020, VA officials reported that the department had begun populating a financial management application with data to track overall IT spending and cost savings, but did not provide a timeframe for when a mechanism to track this data would be finalized. We will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the agency planned to develop a process for collecting cost savings data. Specifically, in January 2020, GSA officials reported that the agency intended to develop and document a process for collecting cost and savings data for current and new investments using cloud services. Officials noted that the documentation would provide guidance as to what savings data would be required to be collected, how frequent the data would be reported, and the process for approval, but did not provide a timeframe for when the guidance would be finalized. In addition, officials reported that, once the new process was finalized, the agency would pilot the new process in order to test the approach and the collection of data. As of May 2020, the process has not been finalized. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Small Business Administration (SBA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SBA officials reported that the agency had established a tool for monitoring the costs associated with the migration and deployment of cloud services. However, the documentation SBA provided did not indicate how cloud savings and cost avoidances would be isolated and reported. We will continue to monitor SBA's progress toward implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SSA officials provided a copy of the agency's updated guidance but the guidance did not include language that addressed our recommendation. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from SSA regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SSA officials reported that the agency had completed an assessment of all investments for cloud services. However, our review of the agency's IT Dashboard data in November found that 24 investments remained to be reviewed. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from SSA regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency would take action to address it. In November 2019, SSA officials reported that the agency was working toward implementing a tool that would track cloud savings and avoidances but did not provide a timeframe for when the tool would be finalized. As of May 2020, we have not received a more recent update from SSA regarding its implementation of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-19-291, Mar 21, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
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: 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: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Indian Health Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-136, Mar 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and issued an interim Software Acquisition Pathway policy in January 2020 that addresses software development, including direction on user involvement. As of August 2020, this interim policy has not yet been finalized. According to DOD officials, a final policy is currently under development and is expected to be issued by the end of December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has issued an interim Software Acquisition Pathway that addresses software development, including direction on user involvement. According to DOD officials, this interim pathway is planned to be replaced by a final policy that is currently under development and is expected to be issued by the end of December 2020.
GAO-19-144, Mar 12, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 10 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Agriculture concurred with our recommendation and stated that it was identifying an internal team of subject-matter experts to collaborate with organizations across the department to review the assignment of the "000" code to positions and assist in determining the appropriate work role codes. As of April 2020, USDA expected to complete this activity by fall 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, USDA will need to provide evidence that it has assigned appropriate NICE framework work role codes to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Commerce concurred with the recommendation, but as of January 2020, it had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with the recommendation but as of January 2020, it had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with the recommendation. As of January 2020, it had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD will need to provide evidence that it has assigned appropriate National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education framework work role codes to its positions in the 2210 Information Technology management occupational series and assessed the accuracy of position descriptions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with the recommendation and stated that it would complete a review of the assignment of the "000" code to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series and assign the appropriate NICE framework work role codes. As of March 2020, HHS has made significant progress toward reviewing the assignment of work role codes to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series and ensuring that such positions are not coded with the "000" code. To fully implement this recommendation, HHS will need to provide evidence that it has assigned the appropriate NICE framework work role codes to all or nearly all of its remaining positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with our recommendation. DHS conducted an audit of its components' cybersecurity coding efforts in fiscal year 2018 and identified actions that components needed to take to complete the assignment of appropriate NICE framework work role codes and assess the accuracy of position descriptions; a second audit for fiscal year 2019 is underway, and the department expects to complete its coding efforts by December 2020. As of January 2020, DHS has not yet provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has implemented this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, DHS will need to provide evidence that it has assigned appropriate NICE framework work role codes to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series and assessed the accuracy of position descriptions.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agreed with this recommendation. In January 2020, HUD stated that it was in the process of reviewing its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series and assigning appropriate work role codes. To fully implement this recommendation, HUD will need to correctly categorize the work roles and functions performed by IT and cyber-related personnel in order to be able to identify critical cybersecurity staffing needs.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of State concurred with the recommendation. In January 2020, we confirmed that State had assigned National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) framework work role codes to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series. However, the department has not yet provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has completed its efforts to assess the accuracy of position descriptions. To fully implement this recommendation, State will need to provide evidence that it has assessed the accuracy of position descriptions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Treasury partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that some positions may not align to work roles in the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education's (NICE) cybersecurity workforce framework. Treasury stated that it planned to review and validate the work role codes of its IT, cybersecurity, or cyber-related positions by March 2019. However, as of February 2020 Treasury had not provided evidence that it has implemented our recommendation. Until it assigns work role codes that are consistent with the IT, cybersecurity, and cyber-related functions performed by these positions, Treasury will continue to have unreliable information about its cybersecurity workforce that the department will need to identify its workforce roles of critical need.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency concurred with the recommendation but as of January 2020, it had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency concurred with the recommendation and stated that it would complete a review of the assignment of the "000" code to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series, assign the appropriate NICE framework work role codes, and assess the accuracy of position descriptions. As of January 2020, EPA has not yet provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has implemented this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, EPA will need to provide evidence that it has assigned appropriate NICE framework work role codes to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series and assessed the accuracy of position descriptions.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration did not concur with the recommendation. As of January 2020, it had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would complete a review of the assignment of the "000" code to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series, assign the appropriate NICE framework work role codes, and assess the accuracy of position descriptions. In March 2020, NASA indicated that it expected to implement the recommendation by September 30, 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide evidence that it has assigned appropriate NICE framework work role codes to its positions in the 2210 IT management occupational series and assessed the accuracy of position descriptions.
GAO-19-198, Mar 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and in December 2019 reported to the Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the DOD and military service Inspectors General had convened a working group to coordinate performance improvement on unmet timeliness goals. According to the IG, the working group's recommendations are being incorporated into uniform standards for reprisal investigations that are expected to be finalized in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Officer of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Air Force Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Corps Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Marine Corps Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Naval Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Naval Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and in December 2019 reported to the Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the future whistleblower case management system would incorporate design limits providing for access to information only by personnel necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. According to the IG, the system is scheduled to deploy in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that an update scheduled for the end of April 2020 would enhance access control measures in its existing applications. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Army Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Army Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Corps Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Marine Corps Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Naval Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Naval Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.
GAO-19-101, Jan 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA provided a project plan for tasks to be completed for common financial reporting through 2021. However, NNSA has not developed requirements that define specific or detailed requirements for successful implementation of common financial reporting, such as the types of information that program managers need.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA established a detailed project schedule for the common financial reporting effort through fiscal year 2021. However, NNSA should communicate this detailed project schedule for the effort to Congress on an annual basis.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, NNSA developed a risk management plan for common financial reporting which established a framework for identifying and managing risks. GAO will continue to monitor NNSA's efforts to implement the plan, including how NNSA identifies and documents risks and mitigates risk exposure using its management plan.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, NNSA has continued to engage on a regular basis with its M&O contractors. However, similar efforts have not continued with stakeholders of the program offices.
GAO-19-146R, Dec 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Department of Agriculture asserted that it has implemented the recommendation but has not provided sufficient evidence to support its assertion.
GAO-19-63, Dec 11, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, and in response to our draft report, DOD stated that it would analyze the Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation data in an effort to identify why the miscoding of orders under multiple award contracts occurs, and use this information to advise the contracting community of actions to improve the reliability of the competition data. In July 2019, DOD officials stated they did not have an update regarding planned actions to address the recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD officials did not respond to our multiple requests for updates to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2019, HHS stated it was performing analysis and research to understand the reasons for the miscoding of orders. Once this analysis and research is completed, HHS reported it plans to work to address the root causes of the previously identified miscodings, so as to prevent future errors. In July 2019, HHS officials stated they did not have an update regarding planned actions to address the recommendation. As of September 2020, HHS officials did not respond to our multiple requests for updates to this recommendation.
GAO-19-140, Dec 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its February 2019 action plan, the Bureau indicated having updated the Census Field Supervisor hiring assessment to include questions on supervisory experience, in line with draft documentation provided near the end of our engagement. The Bureau also indicated that, by June 2019, it would communicate as part of supervisor training increased supervisory responsibilities and the need to more actively work with enumerators in answering casework questions. In August 2020, the Bureau informed us that the Bureau would not be altering the information flows for 2020 operations to ensure that census field supervisors receive the same guidance and procedural updates that managers within the area census office receive. To fully implement this recommendation for future fieldwork, the Bureau's planned or other actions will also need to demonstrate how the census field supervisors will have the information they need to carry out their responsibilities to provide supervisory support to enumerators.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In its February 2019 action plan, the Bureau indicated that it plans, by June 2019, to give area census offices (ACOs) the ability to distribute training and informational updates to their local workforces through the Operational Control System. As of January 2020, we are reviewing updated Bureau training documentation on planned mid-operation procedural changes. In April 2020, the Bureau informed us that ACOs would not be empowered during 2020 operations to deliver to their workforces standardized, mid-operation guidance that would be targeted to specific issues being observed locally in the field. Officials noted that they would revisit this issue after 2020 operations have concluded. To fully implement this recommendation for future fieldwork, the Bureau will need to demonstrate the ability of ACOs to identify procedural or other implementation issues encountered locally and develop some form of actionable guidance disseminated systematically to its workforce in near-real time.
GAO-19-60, Nov 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In March 2020, Secret Service officials stated that the component had drafted a revised enterprise governance policy that outlines the CIO's and Deputy CIO's roles and responsibilities. We will continue to monitor the component's efforts to finalize this policy.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In March 2020, Secret Service officials stated that the component had drafted a charter for its Executive Resources Board that specifies the roles and responsibilities of Board members, including the CIO. We will continue to monitor the component's efforts to finalize this charter.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: Secret Service officials stated that Secret Service acquisition directives require the component to conduct a Post Implementation Review of IT programs after such a program achieves Initial Operating Capability. However, it is unclear whether and how this requirement applies to agile projects, and if the Secret Service has included post-deployment user satisfaction metrics in the modular outcomes and target measures that the CIO sets for monitoring such projects. DHS's draft agile guidance strongly recommends that user satisfaction be assessed at the end of each production deployment, not just one time after Initial Operating Capability. Moreover, the Secret Service has not yet demonstrated that the CIO has included product quality in the modular outcomes and target measures that the CIO sets for monitoring agile projects. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: In 2018 and 2019, the Secret Service participated in the Department of Homeland Security's Strategic Workforce Planning initiative, during which the department identified critical competencies and target proficiency levels for various IT workforce roles across the department (e.g., systems analysis, network management). However, it is unclear whether the Secret Service's participation in this initiative included the identification of the required knowledge and skills for all of the roles within the component's IT workforce, or just certain roles. In addition, while the Secret Service also established a standard operating procedure document in December 2019 that, among other things, identified recommended training and certifications for each OCIO division (e.g., network management, cyber security), this procedure document did not identify the required knowledge and skills for the workforce roles within each of those OCIO divisions. We will continue to monitor the component's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to Secret Service officials, the component analyzed its IT workforce to identify its competency needs, as well as determined the projected staffing and competency gaps that it would have in fiscal year 2019. However, it has not yet provided supporting documentation of the analyses that the CIO conducted to determine these competency needs and projected competency gaps. We will continue to follow-up with the Secret Service for documentation of its efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to Secret Service officials, the component determined that it had a projected staffing gap for fiscal year 2019 of 35 staff within the 2210 occupational job series (i.e., IT management staff). The officials also said that they had identified projected competency gaps related to positions such as Cyber Intelligence Analyst and Intelligence Research Specialist. While the Secret Service has not yet provided documentation of the analyses it conducted to determine these gaps, the component provided documentation to demonstrate that it targeted its fiscal year 2019 recruiting events to focus on addressing IT staffing and competency gaps. For example, among other things, in fiscal year 2019 the component conducted outreach and recruiting events focused on defense, cyber, IT, and intelligence hiring, as well as conducted a targeted cyber security hiring campaign with a large online job search service. We will continue to follow-up with the Secret Service for documentation of the analyses the OCIO conducted to determine its IT staffing and competency gaps, in order to verify whether the 2019 recruiting events conducted were focused on addressing such gaps.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: Secret Service officials stated that the component has conducted recruitment and outreach efforts focused on IT, cyber, and engineering careers, and monitors the effectiveness of these efforts. However, the Secret Service has not yet provided supporting documentation demonstrating that it has (1) developed and tracked metrics to monitor the effectiveness of these recruitment activities, including their effectiveness at addressing skill and staffing gaps within the IT workforce; and (2) reported to component leadership on those metrics. We will continue to monitor the Secret Service's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Secret Service has not yet demonstrated that it has established and tracked metrics for assessing the effectiveness of its recruitment and hiring plans and activities for the IT workforce. As such, the component is not yet able to demonstrate that its Office of Human Resources and OCIO have adjusted their recruitment and hiring plans and activities based on these metrics. We will continue to monitor the Secret Service's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Secret Service established a standard operating procedure document that identifies, among other things, recommended training and certifications for each OCIO division (e.g., network management, cyber security). However, this procedure document does not identify required training for each of these divisions. In March 2020, Secret Service officials stated that OCIO supervisors issued individual development plans to their team members that identified training requirements for continued professional development. However, the Secret Service has not yet provided documentation of these training requirements, nor evidence to support that the planned professional development activities are based on the required training for each IT workforce group. Moreover, the officials stated that, in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), training is suspended. As such, the component is not implementing IT workforce training activities at this time. The officials plan to continue staff training once it is reinstated. We will continue to monitor the component's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: While Secret Service officials stated that the component's Office of Training establishes the required curriculum for Secret Service personnel, the component has not yet demonstrated that the CIO has defined the training required for each IT workforce group, as we previously recommended. As such, the component is also not able to demonstrate that it is ensuring that each IT workforce group completes the training specific to their positions, as we also recommended. We will continue to monitor the Secret Service's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: Secret Service officials stated that they are assessing how IT training has contributed to improved performance and results by comparing IT course completion results to the results of related training exercises that the component conducts (for example, the Secret Service may compare the completion rates for an IT security awareness training course to the results of a related IT security awareness exercise that the component conducts). However, the Secret Service has not yet provided supporting documentation of these assessments. We will continue to monitor the component's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service
Status: Open
Comments: According to Secret Service officials, the component has implemented a performance management system that enables OCIO supervisors to update the individual performance plans of each IT workforce staff member to include the relevant technical competencies against which each staff member's performance is to be assessed. However, the Secret Service has not yet provided supporting documentation demonstrating that OCIO has updated the performance plans for each IT workforce staff member to include the relevant technical competencies. We will continue to monitor the component's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-19-49, Nov 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided documentation regarding its IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not yet developed procedures that explicitly require that all transactions with an IT component be included in the expenditure reporting to the CIO. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided documentation regarding its IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not yet documented procedures for ensuring the CIO is included in budget decisions for all programs with IT resources, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided charters that included the CIO as a member of department-level governance boards that inform IT decisions. However, DOE has not provided charters that include the CIO as a member of component-level IT governance boards. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT governance board and budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures by which the CIO is to work with program leadership in planning IT resources for all programs, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures by which the CIO is to review and approve all major IT investments, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures for the CIO's review of IT resources that are to support major program objectives and significant increases and decreases in IT resources for department and component agency budget requests. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not developed procedures for documenting steps the CIO is to take to ensure that the IT portfolio includes appropriate estimates of all IT resources. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. 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: DOE agreed with our recommendation and is planning to take steps towards implementing it. Specifically, DOE plans to implement the Technology Business Management Framework by December 2021. Additionally, the department is coordinating internally to update its financial and procurement systems to better identify IT spending. DOE anticipates that its updates will allow the agency to compare actual IT spending against estimates in the portfolio. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the agency intends to update its IT investment planning policy to include requirements for reporting expenditures that apply to all transactions with an IT component. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the agency intends to update its IT investment planning policy to amplify the CIO's role in the planning and budgeting stages for all programs with IT resources. Also, HHS intends to document procedures for ensuring that all delegated authorities are carried out. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation. The department has provided charters that included the CIO as a member of department-level governance boards that inform IT decisions. However, HHS has not provided charters that include the CIO as a member of component-level IT governance boards. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. For example, HHS plans to develop an asset management policy and introduce a pilot program to manage inventories across the agency. However, the department has not developed policies and procedures that incorporate the processes by which the program leadership are planning the IT portfolio with the CIO for existing investments greater than or equal to $20 million annually and for investments delegated to components. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the department intends to update its IT investment planning policy to amplify the CIO's role in reviewing major investments. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. Specifically, HHS documented procedures that require the CIO to hold annual IT investment review meetings with components to review changes in IT resources. However, HHS has not documented procedures for the CIO's role in reviewing major program objectives. We will continue to monitor the department's progress toward implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the department intends to assess and update its existing policies and procedures to document the steps the CIO is to take to review the IT portfolio for appropriate estimates of all IT resources. We will continue to monitor the department's progress toward implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the department intends to develop an IT governance policy to define the accountability of the CIO over all IT projects and establish processes detailing quality reviews and the level of rigor that should be applied by its IT governance board. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and is planning to take steps to implement it. Specifically, the agency intends to update its IT acquisition program policy and related processes. HHS also plans to document standard operating procedures for agency wide dissemination to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of IT investment governance through transparent and repeatable procedures. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and are planning to take steps towards implementing it. Specifically, HHS established a working group and developed a roadmap for implementing the Technology Business Management Framework by fiscal year 2022. The agency anticipates that its strategy and approach will enable HHS to, among other things, link IT portfolio data, procurement system data, and financial system data. We will continue to monitor the department's progress towards implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS agreed with our recommendation. 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: The department agreed with the recommendation and has taken steps towards implementing it. Specifically, in October 2019, the DOJ CIO issued a memorandum requiring component CIOs to establish a process for providing IT investment information to the DOJ CIO. The component CIO's process is to either include the DOJ CIO as a member of component investment review boards or provide an alternative mechanism for obtaining the DOJ CIO's input on component IT investments. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Status: Open
Comments: FBI agreed with our recommendation. 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 department 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 department 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 department 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 department 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 department 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 department 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 department 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 department has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-38, Oct 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. By July 2019, DOD had completed a study of printing and reproduction services to determine the best value to the department. As of December 2019, according to a DOD official, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment plans to develop steps toward achieving the best value to the government based on the study results, and update DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services by July 2020. Completion of these actions would allow DOD to determine if further efficiencies in its document services are possible.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. In July 2019, DOD had completed a study of printing and reproduction services to determine the best value to the department. As of December 2019, according to a DOD official, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment plans to develop steps toward achieving the best value to the government based on the study results, and update DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services by July 2020. Completion of these actions would allow DOD to determine if further efficiencies in its document services are possible.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD had ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, according to a DOD official, the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) will collaborate with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to define the necessary responsibilities, policy, and procedures in the planned revision of DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services. DOD plans to update the instruction by July 2020. Implementing controls, such as clarifying responsibilities, policy, and procedures would better enable DOD to achieve department-wide goals for reducing print devices it established in the CIO's 2012 memorandum.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD had ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, according to a DOD official, the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) will collaborate with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to define the necessary responsibilities, policy, and procedures in the planned revision of DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services. DOD plans to update the instruction by July 2020. Implementing controls, such as clarifying responsibilities, policy, and procedures would better enable DOD to achieve department-wide goals for reducing print devices it established in the CIO's 2012 memorandum.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2019, DOD had ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, according to DOD documentation, the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) planned to examine the Service-related definitions of printing and reproduction for potential process improvements. DOD anticipated completing this action by July 2020. Examining opportunities to improve the definitions of printing and reproduction services would better position DOD to report more accurate funding information for document services, as GAO recommended in October 2018
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-18-298, Jun 28, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided its fiscal year 2018 Operational Analysis Results report, dated June 24, 2019. The report demonstrated that IRS, in response to our recommendation, had ensured that the operational analysis for IMF fully addressed greater utilization of technology or consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals. However, the operational analysis did not reflect IRS's progress to date in modernizing IMF and the associated challenges. As we reported, this omission is concerning given the risk exposure from the agency's continued use of the legacy assembly language code. In order to close the recommendation, IRS needs to update the operational analysis to reflect its progress modernizing IMF.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided its fiscal year (FY) 2018 Operational Analysis Results report, dated June 24, 2019. While the report included a summary of the FY 2018 operational analysis for TSS, it did not identify the metrics used to determine whether TSS supported customer processes or delivered the goods and services that it is intended to deliver. To close this recommendation, IRS will need to provide the detailed operational analysis for TSS incorporating these metrics. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided the full TSS operational analysis to GAO. Upon receiving the document, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided GAO its fiscal year (FY) 2018 Operational Analysis Results report. While the report included a summary of the FY 2018 operational analysis for the Telecommunications Systems and Support (TSS) investment , including planned and actual cost figures for FY2018, the report did not indicate whether the planned cost figure for FY2018 accounted for reimbursable costs and user fees, as we reported. To address this recommendation, IRS will need to provide a full operational analysis for TSS, as well as documentation showing whether reimbursable costs and user fees are included in the planned cost figure. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided a full TSS operational analysis to GAO. Upon receiving the document, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided its fiscal year (FY) 2018 Operational Analysis Results report, dated June 24, 2019. While the report included a summary of the FY 2018 operational analysis for End User Systems and Services (EUSS) investment, including planned and actual cost figures for FY2018, it did not specify whether the planned cost figure accounted for multi-year funding and user fees, as we reported. To address this recommendation, IRS will need to provide a full operational analysis for EUSS, as well as documentation showing whether multi-year funding and user fees are included in the planned cost figure. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided the full EUSS operational analysis to GAO. Upon receiving it, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframe and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019. While the plan addressed most of the activities associated with the preparing for risk management key practice, it did not identify risk constraints, risk assumptions, or risk tolerance for the MSSS investment. Upon receiving further information, we will review it to determine if IRS has fully addressed this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by October 2019. In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframe and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019, along with several other documents associated with the agency's IT risk management process. However, the documents do not demonstrate that IRS has implemented the activities associated with the Analyze Risk key practice. Specifically, while the plan describes a risk analysis process in which risks are classified as high, medium, or low risk, neither the plan nor any of the other documents describes criteria for evaluating and quantifying risk likelihood and severity (impact) levels. Additionally, the Risk Management Plan does not indicate whether analysis of MSSS risks includes both inherent and residual risks. Upon receiving additional information indicating that IRS has addressed these activities, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by October 2019. In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframe and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019, along with several other documents associated with the agency's IT risk management process. However, the documents do not demonstrate that IRS has established threshold values for MSSS risk categories or alternative courses of action for critical risks. Upon receiving additional information indicating that it has addressed these activities. we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by October 2019. In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframes and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019, along with several other documents associated with the agency's IT risk management process. However, the documents do not demonstrate that IRS has fully implemented all of the activities associated with the monitoring, reporting, and controlling key practice. Specifically, our review of the documents shows that IRS has not established threshold values for MSSS risk categories, and as a result is unable to compare the status of risks to acceptability thresholds to determine the need for implementing a risk mitigation plan. In addition, although the MSSS Risk Management Plan was updated in October 2019, its previous revision occurred in October 2017, indicating that IRS has not yet reviewed all aspects of the risk management program at least once a year. Upon receiving additional information that IRS has addressed these activities, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it had initiated efforts to address workforce planning agency-wide. The agency stated that the Human Capital Office in coordination with the Information Technology organization prioritizes critical skills gaps to develop gap mitigation strategies, which are implemented through IT annual training plans and succession planning efforts. IRS also stated that the mitigation plans will be monitored in the current Project and Portfolio Management System and that the Human Capital and Information Technology organizations will monitor resource capacity, skills, assigned work effort, and staff availability. In addition, IRS stated that it would utilize special hiring authorities as a competency and staffing mitigation strategy. The agency noted that the special authorities are subject to the availability of resources and agency approval. Further, IRS stated that, due to the diversion of IT resources to the Tax Cuts and Jobs implementation, development of a plan for scaling and expansion of workforce planning efforts will commence after the opening of Filing Season 2020. IRS stated that, due to those constraints, it could not provide a date for fully implementing the recommendation. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether it has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-466, Jun 14, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Commerce (Commerce) officials concurred with our recommendation and planned to evaluate the level of preparedness for cybersecurity personnel not currently holding certifications to take certification exams, and to identify strategies for mitigating any gaps identified. As of August 2020, Commerce had not provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Energy (DOE) officials concurred with our recommendation and planned to evaluate the level of preparedness for cybersecurity personnel not currently holding certifications to take certification exams using the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) certification mapping that is due for release in November 2018. DOE officials plan to develop criteria to identify personnel who are prepared to take certification exams and will perform a department-wide evaluation, after which they plan to report to Congress by a target date of September 30, 2019. As of August 2020, DOE had not provided evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Department of the Interior (Interior) concurred with our recommendation. Officials from the department stated they were developing a plan to assess the workforce's preparedness to complete and maintain certifications. Interior officials stated that they were planning to leverage its learning and performance management system for assessing the level of preparedness of cybersecurity personnel to take certification exams and planned to report to Congress by March 2021. As of August 2020, HUD had not provided evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) did not concur with our recommendation and has not yet provided evidence that it has implemented the recommendation as of August 2020. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Small Business Administration (SBA) officials concurred with our recommendation. SBA officials stated that they have made significant progress in the workforce assessment area, and have recently completed an assessment of the SBA's IT workforce and reported on existing skills gaps. SBA officials stated that they plan to execute against the IT workforce plan to include addressing requirements within the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of 2015. As of August 2020, SBA had not provided evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Small Business Administration (SBA) officials concurred with our recommendation. SBA officials stated that they have made significant progress in the workforce assessment area, and have recently completed an assessment of the SBA's IT workforce and reported on existing skills gaps. SBA officials stated that they plan to execute against the IT workforce plan to include addressing requirements within the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act of 2015. As of August 2020, SBA had not provided evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
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-18-130, Apr 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of the department's information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report includes high-level descriptions of the current and target architectures, and high-level plans and schedules for transitioning from the current to the target architecture. The report states that because of the incremental approach to developing the architecture, the plans and schedules are notional and depend on several factors over which the DOD CIO has limited or no control, such as funding and changing world events, priorities, and technology. The report also describes plans to integrate the IEA with the department's business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for integrating the architectures. According to the report, for the next increment of the architecture, the department plans to develop compliance criteria and plans for developing an ontology, database, and tool suite. The department did not provide a time frame for completing the next increment. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of its information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report described planned efforts related to integrating the IEA and the business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for when the department plans to integrate the architectures.
GAO-18-42, Jan 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with our recommendation, and in June 2018, USDA CIO delegated the review and approval of acquisition plans and strategies to the Capital Planning and Information Technology Governance Division (CPITGD) through the Associate CIO of the Information Resource Management Center. However, as of June 2020, the agency had not provided evidence to demonstrate that these reviews and approvals are taking place as required by OMB's guidance. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In a March 2018 response to our report, the agency agreed with our recommendation and stated that the CIO and the Senior Procurement Executive will issue a memo to their acquisition and CIO member offices clarifying the offices joint responsibilities to ensure that all IT acquisitions are submitted to the CIO for review and approval. The memo is also to provide guidance on the process by which the CIO will review proposed contract actions. However, as of February 2020, the agency had not responded to requests for updates. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In a March 2018 response to our report, the agency agreed with our recommendation and stated that it intended to clarify its policies and procedures to comply with OMB rules, including the IT acquisition checklist, which must be completed for every proposed contract action. In addition, the CIO and Senior Procurement Executive will work together to review existing acquisition plan review and approval processes. However, as of February 2020, the agency had not responded to requests for updates. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation and in an April 2018 update stated that HHS has a policy for the HHS IT acquisition review process for acquisition strategies. However, as of February 21, 2020, the agency had not provided evidence that the CIO (or designee) was reviewing and approving IT acquisition plans, as required. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation, and in a December 2019 update provided information on the agency's CPIC process and a template for IT acquisition strategies. However, it is not clear whether the CIO is reviewing and approving IT acquisitions plans through the CPIC process and the template does not provide a place for the CIO review and approval. In addition, we have requested evidence of CIO approval of selected IT acquisitions. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The agency did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with the recommendation. In March 2019, Treasury issued a memo that requires the CIO to review and approve IT acquisition plans for acquisitions with a total value of $68 million or more, or for actions with a period of performance longer than 5 years. The review and approval of all other IT acquisition plans are delegated to the component CIOs or Chief Technology Officers. However, the agency had not yet provided evidence that the CIO (or designee) was reviewing and approving selected IT acquisition plans, as required. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation. In October 2019, Transportation issued guidance requiring that the CIO or designee to review and approve all IT acquisition plans. We have requested that the agency provide us evidence of CIO-approved IT acquisition plans. The agency stated that it planned to respond by May 15, 2020. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation. In November 2019, VA issued guidance that requires the CIO, in conjunction with the Chief Acquisition Officer, to review and approve all IT acquisition strategies and plans. Specifically, the CIO is to review and approve IT acquisitions valued at $15 million or more. The CIO has delegated the review and approval of IT acquisitions less than $15 million to other designees, based on the value of the contract. However, the agency had not provided evidence that the CIO (or designee) was reviewing and approving selected IT acquisition plans, as required. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation, and in September 2017, NASA's CIO delegated the review and approval authority of IT acquisitions to the Center CIOs. We have requested evidence of CIO-approved IT acquisitions. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation and in an April 2020 updated stated that OPM has contracted with a third-party vendor to evaluate the OPM IT human capital, architecture, and governance processes from planning to acquisition to implementation. The agency further stated that it is working to fully implement an IT governance process where the OPM CIO fully reviews and approves IT acquisition plans and processes. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-18-51, Nov 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: We have been requesting periodic updates from OMB on actions it has taken to address the recommendation. As of April 2020, the agency did not have any updates.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB has not taken actions to address this recommendation, stating that the Federal CIO is not typically involved with overseeing individual IT programs. However, we continue to believe it is important for OMB to take this action, as the results of past CIO-led reviews of troubled programs show that CIO oversight can have significant positive results, including producing significant savings. In December 2019, OMB stated that it had no ongoing or planned action to address the recommendation, noting that the recommendation represents a "fundamental disagreement" between OMB and GAO on the role of the Federal CIO in overseeing programs.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: We have been requesting periodic updates from OMB on actions it has taken to address the recommendation. As of April 2020, the agency did not have any updates.
GAO-18-148, Nov 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, a Department of Agriculture official stated that the department was working to establish a policy to include the information noted in our recommendation and planned to finalize a policy by the end of December 2019. We will continue to monitor the department's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has taken action, and stated that it would draft a policy to address our recommendation. In November 2019, a VA official stated that the department is working to address our recommendation but did not identify timeframes for when all activities would be completed. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to develop a policy to implement this recommendation and other FITARA issues. Specifically, EPA officials reported in July 2019 that the agency was continuing to work to address the recommendation but did not provided a time frame for when a policy would be finalized. We will continue to monitor EPA's progress on these efforts.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the agency was in the process of addressing it. Specifically, NASA officials reported in June 2020 that its guidance is currently being updated to include the information noted in our recommendation and will be finalized by September 2020. We will continue to monitor NASA's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its policies and processes to include the elements we recommended. Specifically, OPM officials reported in November 2019 that guidance on CIO certification was being developed but the agency had not yet determined a time frame for finalizing the policy. We will continue to monitor OPM's progress on these efforts.
GAO-17-464, Sep 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to, among other things, provide the EIS vendor community with USDA's future vision and requirements in order to enable each vendor to propose optimal solutions; and update the cost benefit analysis of new technologies while reviewing vendor proposals. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As we recommended, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified transition roles and responsibilities related to the management of assets, human capital, and information security, and legal expertise. USDA also developed a communications plan and change management plan for the transition. However, the department has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented change management, nor that it is using configuration management for the transition. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials stated that they are in the process of completing an Independent Government Cost Estimate for the transition. The officials also stated that the department is creating an EIS support organization that will address staffing needs for the transition. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to (1) incorporate mission-critical priorities into USDA's requests for quotes; (2) ensure that critical systems are inventoried and that their respective transition plans ensure continuity of operations; and (3) prioritize mission-critical functions within its transition timeline. However, USDA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the agency is in the process of developing an inventory of its telecommunications assets and services that are associated with GSA's expiring contracts (e.g., Networx). The officials noted that, as part of the department's transition to EIS, DOL plans to include only limited non-GSA/commercial telecommunications assets and services in its initial transition efforts and inventory. The officials further stated that DOL will not focus on these non-GSA/commercial assets and services until the department completes its transition of assets and services associated with GSA's expiring contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to develop a complete telecommunications inventory, including assets and services associated with both GSA and non-GSA/commercial contracts, and associated maintenance processes for this inventory.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor (DOL) provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified certain future telecommunications needs for the department, but DOL did not identify these needs using a complete inventory of its current telecommunications assets and services. In addition, the department demonstrated that it had completed a draft strategic analysis of its telecommunications requirements, but this analysis was not yet finalized and approved. Further, the department has not yet demonstrated that it has aligned its identified telecommunications needs with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other supporting documentation for the transition, including a communications plan. DOL expects to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other documentation that would address this recommendation. The officials expect to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Labor (DOL) officials stated that the department is in the process of selecting a project manager to develop the Transition Project Plan and other documentation that would address this recommendation. The officials expect to develop this documentation around March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred with our recommendation. SEC stated that it plans to establish an EIS planning team comprised of key IT personnel from across the agency to identify, among other things, future needs and areas for improvement, so that SEC can incorporate the results into its transition planning. However, SEC has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress implementing this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to document the roles and responsibilities of key EIS transition team members across the agency. The agency also plans to develop a transition communications plan that includes configuration and change management practices. However, SEC has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress implementing this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In response to our recommendation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provided a high-level budget estimate for the transition. However, it was unclear what costs were included in this estimate and the agency did not provide documentation that justified the costs identified. In addition, SEC has not yet provided an analysis of the staff resources it needs for the transition, nor an analysis of the training needs for the staff assisting with the transition. We will continue to monitor SEC's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has demonstrated that its transition goals and measures align with its mission. In addition, the commission has identified transition risks related to continuity of operations. However, SEC has not yet identified transition risks related to its critical systems, nor identified mission-critical priorities in its transition timeline. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Social Security Administration (SSA) officials stated that the agency is in the process of making significant changes to its procedures and policy for its telecommunications inventory. The officials expect to have a complete inventory of their telecommunications assets and services by 2021. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Social Security Administration (SSA) officials stated that the agency's priority is to transition its telecommunications services on a like-for-like basis, in order to complete the transition before its existing contracts expire, as well as to receive immediate cost savings. Officials also stated that, once SSA has released its EIS solicitations, they plan to analyze the alignment of their future telecommunications needs with the agency's enterprise architecture. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed this analysis. We will continue to monitor SSA's progress on these efforts.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided documentation demonstrating that it has implemented a change management process, including establishing a change control board that is scheduled to meet on a weekly basis and tracking change requests in its IT Service Management tool. However, SSA has not yet demonstrated that it has implemented configuration management processes for its transition. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to implement these processes.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified the staff resources and required training for staff working on the transition. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified the funding resources needed for the full transition, nor documented the costs and benefits of transition investments, such as for resource requests related to transition program management staff. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) has identified transition risks related to critical systems and continuity of operations. In addition, SSA officials stated that the agency is in the process of identifying (1) agency-specific measures of success for the transition and (2) mission-critical priorities that need to be incorporated into its transition timeline. However, SSA has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has completed these efforts. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to fully implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that the department has developed a comprehensive inventory of its telecommunications assets and services, and maintains this inventory on a regular basis. However, as of August 2020, the department has not yet provided documentation of its inventory or the associated maintenance processes. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to complete this inventory and establish a maintenance process for it.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that they conducted an assessment of the department's future telecommunication requirements. According to officials, the results of this analysis were included in an EIS Statement of Work. However, DOT has not demonstrated that it used its complete inventory of existing services to identify its future needs. DOT also stated that it has conducted extensive research to identify areas for optimization and sharing, but did not provide documentation of this research. Further, DOT has not provided evidence that the department has aligned its transition approach with its long-term plans and enterprise architecture. We will continue to follow-up with DOT regarding these efforts.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a transition communications plan and identified roles and responsibilities related to legal expertise, the management of assets and human capital. DOT has also provided evidence that they are requiring the use of change management in the transition. However, DOT has not demonstrated that it is applying configuration management processes to DOT's transition efforts. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) developed a transition resource plan that identifies functional roles needed for the transition, such as network engineers and staff to place new telecommunications orders. However, the transition resource plan did not identify the staffing levels needed for each of the functional roles, such as how many network engineers are necessary, and DOT did not provide other documentation that fully identifies these resources needs. In addition, DOT has not yet provided documentation that it has identified the funding needed for the full transition, justified requests for transition resources, or fully analyzed training needs for staff assisting with the transition. We will continue to follow-up on DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: Department of Transportation (DOT) provided evidence that its transition goals and measures align with its mission and that it has identified the risks associated with the EIS transition. However, DOT has not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it has identified mission-critical priorities in its transition timeline. We will continue to monitor DOT's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-17-377, Sep 6, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: Officials have previously acknowledged that a public health situational awareness network capability is important for identifying, processing, and comprehending data in real-time and stated that such a capability requires coordination and participation from numerous federal entities, including numerous HHS's operating divisions. However, as of January 2020, GAO has not received any information demonstrating progress made to implement our recommendation. Further, HHS has not provided us with a plan of action describing how they would implement the recommendation. Until steps are taken to implement our recommendation, HHS may not make the progress needed to establish an electronic public health situational awareness network capability mandated by PAHPRA in 2013 and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: Officials have previously acknowledged that a public health situational awareness network capability is important for identifying, processing, and comprehending data in real-time and stated that such a capability requires coordination and participation from numerous federal entities, including numerous HHS's operating divisions. However, as of February 2020 agency officials have not indicated whether or not they concur with the recommendation, nor have they taken any action or provided a plan of action describing how they would implement the recommendation. Until steps are taken to implement our recommendation, HHS may not make progress toward establishing an electronic public health situational awareness network capability mandated by PAHPRA in 2013 and in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019 .
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In HHS' Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund's fiscal year 2021 budget justification-which includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response-the agency stated it "concurred" with this recommendation. However, as of February 2020, GAO has not received any information demonstrating progress made to implement our recommendation. Until then, HHS may continue to lack the necessary progress needed in order to establish an electronic public health situational awareness network capability mandated by PAHPRA. To address this recommendation, HHS needs to direct the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to conduct all IT management and oversight processes related to the establishment of the network in accordance with Enterprise Performance Life Cycle Framework guidance.
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-17-258, Aug 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it had updated its requirement to request 2-year budget forecasts instead of 5-year budget forecasts. In its December 2017 statement of actions, HHS stated that it was working to streamline and simplify its data collection effort as part of the annual sustainability plan. In April 2018, HHS provided a revised 2-year budget forecast template as well as related state marketplace training documentation. As of April 2020, HHS had not provided further documented evidence of its streamlined process using the 2-year budget forecast template or justification that a 5-year budget is not necessary for assessing long-term financial sustainability and state marketplace sustainability risks.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that it continued to provide technical assistance such as webinars and other trainings on independent financial and programmatic audit submission requirements. In April 2018, HHS provided evidence that it had taken some steps to ensure that state-based marketplaces provide required annual financial audit reports, including draft financial audit procedures, documentation of related training provided to states, and a revised HHS state officer annual review checklist emphasizing financial audit reporting. However as of April 2020, the department had not provided evidence of finalized procedures, examples of checklist usage, or of states providing annual financial audit reports. Further, HHS training documentation stated that state-based marketplaces could provide alternate financial audit reports, such as a state-wide financial audit report, in lieu of a marketplace specific report. It is not clear from the provided evidence that the department has ensured that state-based marketplaces are in compliance with financial audit reporting requirements. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes further action.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that it would refine its marketplace self-sustainability risk assessment process to provide greater insight into the state marketplace sustainability efforts and to identify areas where states may need assistance. In April 2018, HHS provided evidence that it had taken some steps to base its risk assessments on fully defined processes. CMS provided documentation of clearly defined and measurable terms used for state marketplace budget analysis. However, HHS did not provide evidence that these defined terms were incorporated into analyses or risk assessments. As of April 2020, CMS has not provided evidence that it took steps to develop a clear categorization process or a defined response to high risks. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS partially concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that though each marketplace was accountable for managing and reporting its own IT metrics in accordance with federal and state law, HHS would work with states on the improvement of their management and operations through technical assistance and oversight and accountability measures. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it conducted Open Enrollment Readiness Reviews to assess marketplace key performance indicators, which according to CMS officials, are similar to operational analysis reviews. However, as of October 2018, HHS had not provided evidence that the Open Enrollment Readiness Reviewed systematically and comprehensively reported on the key performance indicators or include discussion of other key elements identified in best practices for operational analysis reviews, such as how objectives could be better met, or costs could be saved. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS partially concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that states were responsible for monitoring their own performance measures but HHS would continue to review IT metrics of state marketplaces in the implementation phase of their systems through technical assistance activities and oversight and accountability measures. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.
GAO-17-448, Aug 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an updated Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) policy that encouraged federal agencies to implement automated monitoring tools at agency-owned data centers using more than 100 kilowatt hours of electricity. However, the updated policy did not require agencies to document a plan for implementing the tools as we recommended. As of January 2020, we have not received further update from OMB and the recommended action has not yet been taken. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) agreed with our recommendation and described planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department noted that, as part of its effort to consolidate, define, and establish a plan to deploy an enterprise-wide automated monitoring tool, it had identified two component agencies that would offer a data center infrastructure management tool as a service. The department added that this approach would allow it to monitor and report cost savings and avoidances more efficiently. In November 2019, Commerce reported that it had 73 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 73, only seven had implemented the required advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 66 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that it established plans to implement automated monitoring tools at its 78 department-owned tiered data centers and planned to evaluate whether its 68 department-owned non-tiered data centers should be consolidated or closed. In November 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department further stated that, for the non-tiered centers projected to remain open, it expected to complete plans for automated server utilization by September 30, 2019. In November 2019, Energy reported that it had 92 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which the Office of Management and Budget exempted three from optimization requirements by. However, of the remaining 89 data centers, only 37 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 52 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that HHS would direct its operating and staff divisions to acquire and install automated monitoring tools in all agency-owned data centers by the close of fiscal year 2018. In November 2019, HHS reported that it had 35 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. Of those 35, 22 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 of its agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) partially concurred with our recommendation. Specifically, the department stated that it was committed to completing its plan on schedule, but that its ability to meet the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all department-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018 depended on many factors and variables, including the availability of funding and other resources. Nevertheless, in October 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department stated that it expected to complete planning for the deployment of automated monitoring in agency-owned data centers by September 30, 2018 and to complete implementation by December 31,2023. The letter noted that Interior would prioritize implementation at major tiered data centers, with implementation at other data centers as budgets permitted. In November 2019, Interior reported that it had 55 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, one of which OMB exempted from optimization requirements. However, of the remaining 54 data centers, only 17 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 37 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (Transportation) agreed with our recommendation and, in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Information Officer would create a plan of action to address the multi-layer requirements applicable to the department. Transportation expected to develop a plan of action that addressed the Office of Management and Budget's August 2016 Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) guidance memorandum. The department expected to implement its plan by September 30, 2018. In November 2019, Transportation reported that it had 17 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 17 data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 17 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, the Department of the Treasury reported that it had 16 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open. However, of those 16 data centers, only four had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 12 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with our recommendation, and in November 2017 correspondence to GAO, described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it's Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) was developing a plan to fully comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018. According to the department, OI&T had taken a series of actions such as determining a strategy to meet OMB reporting requirements and reviewing the existing automated tools in use at VA. As part of its planning effort, OI&T was analyzing its data centers, collecting data through a web-based portal and automated tools, and implementing change management processes to manage IT assets in VA data centers. According to the department, OI&T expected to complete a written comprehensive plan by November?30, 2017. In May 2018, VA indicated that it had engaged OMB in discussions regarding how to classify its data centers and that the comprehensive plan would be completed by October 2018. In November 2019, VA reported that it had 279 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which OMB exempted 67 from optimization requirements and another 204 were pending OMB review to determine whether they would also be exempt. However, of the remaining eight data centers, none had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining eight agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State agreed with our recommendation and described completed and planned actions to address it. Specifically, the department stated that it performed an analysis of tools, including shared services and commercial-off-the-shelf products. The department also stated that it was developing an acquisition strategy based on its research and planned to pursue a commercially available product. However, the department noted that budgetary constraints may delay the acquisition until fiscal year 2019 or later. In October 2019, staff from State's Office of the Chief Information Officer reported that 3,897 of the department's 4,137 servers (94.2 percent) had monitoring tools installed. In January 2020, the staff indicated that the department planned to continue installing tools as funds were available, with the goal of completing installation by the end of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described planned actions to address our recommendation. Specifically, the agency detailed plans to address OMB's requirements, such as leveraging EPA's current investment in a network monitoring tool and the intent to procure and deploy a data center infrastructure management tool by the end of fiscal year 2018. However, in December 2018, EPA determined it will leverage its current network monitoring tool for server utilization monitoring. The agency expects to have most data center servers monitored by the end of CY 2019. Once servers are monitored, the agency said that it will follow the most current OMB guidance to report required metrics. In November 2019, EPA reported that it had four agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those four data centers, one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining three agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation and described plans to address it. Specifically, the agency stated that it plans to consolidate its remaining data centers into two main locations by the end of fiscal year 2018. OPM further stated that this consolidation will obviate the need to implement automated monitoring tools at the data centers that are closing. Finally, the agency noted that it is implementing automated monitoring tools at the designated core data centers. In November 2019, OPM reported that it had two agency-owned data centers that the agency planned to keep open. However, of those two data centers, only one had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the agency about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining agency-owned data center. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-17-614, Aug 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially concurred with the recommendation. OPM has improved its POA&M management system. Using this system, the agency provided, on 08-27-19, milestones showing timely validation of evidence for closing one US-CERT recommendation. However, OPM has not provided support showing timely validation of 16 other US-CERT recommendations that it has closed. OPM needs to provide evidence of timely validation of these 16 completed recommendations, or evidence for the two US-CERT recommendations that remain open, once these two have been closed and validated. As of March 2020, OPM has not yet provided evidence of taking such actions.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM concurred with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM stated that it is working with its learning management system vendor to develop role-based training requirements for its continuous monitoring program, but had not yet targeted an expected completion date. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM needs to issue role-based training requirements for individuals who configure and maintain the deployed continuous diagnostics and mitigation tools. As of March 2020, OPM has not yet provided evidence of taking such actions.
GAO-17-384, Jun 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, VA concurred with our recommendation and provided meeting minutes for its Portfolio Investment Management Board and documentation describing the proposed alignment and interdependencies between information technology (IT) governance boards. According to VA officials, as of September 2019, the department had continued to further evolve its IT governance framework, reworked the committee structure and related working groups that oversee IT investments, and refined the process for prioritizing investments. A draft IT Governance Policy that describes an updated governance structure intended to implement IT solutions and an agile workforce was to be implemented by March 2020. The department has yet to report on the status and results of this implementation. We will continue to monitor VA's actions to ensure that the implementation is consistent with planned actions.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, VA concurred with our recommendation. In addition, the department outlined steps it intends to take to address our recommendation, including developing a set of metrics to provide continuous input into investment portfolio decisions and establishing a methodology for ensuring that IT investments are aligned to business needs and that expected outcomes are defined prior to making the investments. According to department officials, VA issues a Joint Business Plan that identifies annual milestones associated with initiatives agreed upon by both VHA and OIT. As of September 2020, we are reviewing additional documentation related to the underlying processes that support the compilation of the plan and any related metrics for the associated investments that are to support VHA's mission. We will continue to monitor progress in this area.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our report, VA concurred with our recommendation. The department described its intention to ensure that unmet IT needs for the pharmacy benefits management, scheduling, and community care program areas were addressed appropriately during fiscal year 2018 budget formulation. In March 2020, we met with officials from the Pharmacy Benefits Management program office, the Office of Veterans Access to Care, and the Community Care program to discuss the status of new service requests and the extent to which IT needs have been met since our report. While there was a slight decrease in the total number of new service requests that remained open for 5 years or more, officials from each office did not consistently report improvements in how IT needs were being addressed. For example, Pharmacy Benefits Management officials still waited for improvements that may come with the deployment of the new electronic health record system, but they continued to report that updates to industry standards should be addressed sooner and often IT needs did not make it through the prioritization process at the Veterans Health Administration to be considered by the Office of Information and Technology. Community Care officials reported a general improvement in the IT governance process and a more engaged relationship with the Office of Information Technology; however, the list of open new service requests still included long-term VistA-related enhancements, some of which had not yet been prioritized by the department. The Office of Veterans Care has not yet provided an updated list of open new service requests, but officials were satisfied with a new maintenance contract that allowed them to address a number of IT issues. We will continue to monitor the number of new service requests in each program area and the extent to which the IT needs are being met by the IT governance process.
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-17-234, Mar 23, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. Moreover, since our March 2017 report, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, which required VA to develop a comprehensive appeals plan that included, among other things, descriptions of modifications to, cost estimates of and timelines for information technology that the agency needs to carry out appeals reform. However, more than a year after implementation of appeals reform, VA's February 2020 updated plan and FY 2021 budget request indicate that Caseflow has "minimal functionality", with many functionalities yet to be implemented. Further, VA's February 2020 updated plan and its FY 2021 budget request do not include specific steps or goals related to achieving overall functionality, integrated testing, or IT training for staff on new functionality still to be implemented in 2020 or beyond. While the VA's use of the agile process for IT development can help mitigate risks and avoid cost overruns and delays, VA's plans do not signal when Caseflow will support all of the Board's workflow needs for processing appeals under the new process. Such longer-term planning also could help ensure that all potential changes are anticipated in the plans of various VA components. For example, VA's February 2020 updated plan states that VHA cannot use Caseflow to efficiently and effectively manage its appeals workload. Longer-term planning could also ensure more transparency around additional resources needed to fully implement Caseflow versus other appeals-related technologies enterprise wide. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA has produced a longer-term plan for developing, implementing and integrating Caseflow functionality in support of a streamlined appeals process, including clear definitions of initial/minimal operating capability and full operational capability.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. Moreover, since our March 2017 report, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, which required VA to produce a comprehensive appeals plan that required VA, among other things, to periodically publish a range of metrics, including timeliness, related to the processing of appeals under the new and legacy system. As of February 2019, VA implemented appeals reform; however VA has not indicated how it will assess whether or the extent to which the new process, which also allows for multiple appeal opportunities, will achieve final resolution of veterans' appeals sooner, on average, than the legacy process. We will consider closing this recommendation when the Board establishes timeliness goals for all new appeals options and VA has produced a plan for analyzing whether the new process is an improvement. Closure of this recommendation is related to recommendation 2 in GAO-18-352.
GAO-17-281, Feb 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2017, HUD reported that the department concurred with the recommendation and noted that the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) intended to establish cost estimation guidance for IT projects within its IT Management Framework Guide, incorporating appropriate best practices from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. In March 2019, HUD reported that, with contractor assistance, the department had begun to develop a standard methodology for investment lifecycle cost estimation; however, the methodology had not been fully institutionalized across all investments, and a policy for cost estimation had not been developed. Lacking an updated IT Management Framework and cost estimation policy, OCIO took additional interim action in the most recent budget cycle to reduce cost estimation risk by having the Chief Technology Officer standardize the cost estimates for IT investments. HUD continues to take action intended to address this recommendation; however, OCIO has not yet finalized a cost estimation methodology or the associated policy for IT investments or established a timeframe for implementing cost estimation practices departmentwide.
GAO-17-8, Nov 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The department agreed with the recommendation and stated that it plans to fully implement it. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had substantially implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, minimally or partially implemented four activities, and not implemented the remaining three activities. In July 2020, the department provided a summary of actions it claimed it had taken to close the recommendation. The department also provided supporting documentation. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it fully addresses the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the Department of Defense's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had fully implemented the activities to develop competency and staffing requirements and assess competency and staffing needs regularly, substantially implemented four other activities, and partially implemented the remaining two activities. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The department agreed with our recommendation and identified plans for (1) collecting and analyzing additional workforce data and (2) conducting targeted recruitment, staff planning, career development, and training. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had substantially implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, partially implemented three other activities, and either minimally or not implemented the remaining four activities. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The department agreed with the recommendation and stated that it plans to fully implement it. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that the department had fully implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, but had not yet fully implemented the remaining seven activities, including developing a workforce planning process. In January 2020, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of Human Resource Management had established a workgroup to lead and conduct workforce planning activities, and had defined the strategic goals and objectives for the department's IT workforce. The department also stated that the workgroup was planning on subsequently completing additional activities, including completing a workforce analysis with a competency gap assessment, by the end of calendar year 2020, and developing strategies to address any identified gaps by the end of 2021. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The department agreed with our recommendation and identified planned and ongoing efforts to address it. In October 2019 (in GAO-20-129), we reported the results of our evaluation of the department's progress in implementing the eight IT workforce planning activities. Specifically, we reported that it had fully implemented the activity to develop competency and staffing requirements, but had not yet fully implemented the remaining seven activities, including developing a workforce planning process. In January 2020, the department stated that its Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and Office of the Chief Information Officer would be presenting a decision paper to the Human Capital Advisory Council that month to request approval and resources to complete an IT Competency Framework, conduct a competency assessment, and conduct a department-wide workforce planning study for the 2210 (IT management) occupation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement our recommendation.
GAO-16-511, Sep 29, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Commerce did not meet the following software application inventory practice: regularly updates the inventory with quality controls to ensure reliability. Specifically, the department did not provide evidence of a process to regularly update its inventory or quality controls to ensure the reliability of the data collected. In October 2017, the department reported that application inventory information will be captured through the Department of Commerce Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) system, as part of its regular updating of investment information. Further, the department stated that it will update its CPIC handbook to provide guidance on quality control to ensure reliability of the data collected. In November 2018 and November 2019 we followed-up with Commerce on the status of their efforts; however, as of January 2020, we had not received an update. We plan to continue to follow up with Commerce to monitor the status of these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Energy partially met the following three software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, (2) specifies basic application attributes, and (3) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In May 2017, the department reported that it plans to implement automated monitoring and inventory tools by the end of fiscal year 2020, which it expects will address the key practices. In December 2019, the department reported that it anticipates completing a refresh of its application inventory by the end of February 2020. We plan to monitor the department's efforts to implement the tools and to develop a complete application inventory.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) partially met the following three software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, (2) specifies basic application attributes, and (3) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In June 2017, the department reported that it is working to identify applications in field offices, and planned for this effort to be completed in fiscal year 2018. In addition, the department stated it planned to update the inventory to include business functions for each system by the end of fiscal year 2017. Further, department officials stated that to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the application inventory, the department planned to conduct quarterly portfolio reviews starting in fiscal year 2018. In October 2018, HUD officials reported that CTO performed a technical assessment of HUD's IT assets, which resulted in identifying systems in the inventory that had been decommissioned and will be decommissioned. In addition, the department provided its strategy for performing the assessment. In August 2019, HUD reported that it completed an assessment of its legacy applications and the current inventory system is outdated. However, as of January 2020, HUD had not yet provided an updated inventory. We plan to continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Social Security Administration (SSA) partially met the following two software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, and (2) regularly updates the inventory with quality controls to ensure reliability. In March 2017, SSA officials reported that the agency's Office of Systems and Office of Operations continue to collaborate on integrating application information into the Enterprise Application Inventory. The officials reported that regionally developed applications that have been granted authority to operate have been imported into the enterprise application inventory. In addition, the officials stated that the Office of Operations was in the process of redesigning their repository to accommodate requirements to support the Enterprise Application Inventory, including the ability to update and maintain application information in the enterprise repository. Lastly, SSA officials reported that its Office of Information Security and Office of Systems were continuing to work to identify additional headquarters applications and develop process and automation to include applications in the inventory. In June 2019, SSA officials reported that they were continuing to make progress to update the inventory to include systems from all organizational components. However, as of January 2020, we had not received an updated inventory. We will continue to monitor SSA's efforts to develop a complete application inventory.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of Labor did not meet one software application inventory practice, and partially met three practices. Specifically, we reported that the department did not meet the practice to ensure that the inventory is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability, and partially met the practices to (1) include business and enterprise IT systems, (2) include systems from all organizational components, and (3) specify basic application attributes. In March 2018, department officials provided an updated inventory, which included business and enterprise IT systems from all organizational components, and specified basic attributes, including the name, owner, and business function. In addition, officials stated that they plan to update the inventory on a periodic basis as necessary, at minimum annually, as part of the department's IT budgeting process. Further, in June 2019, officials reported that the department performs biannual reviews of all IT investments and associated systems and applications to verify reported data. The officials also reported that the department uses quality control processes and procedures to ensure consistent, standard, and complete reporting to align with all investment artifacts. However, the department did not provide evidence of these data quality efforts. In June 2019, officials also reported that the department is implementing a new system in order to maintain an ongoing comprehensive inventory of all IT assets, including applications, which it expects to have fully operational by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of the Treasury had partially met the following two practices for establishing a complete software application inventory, (1) specifies basic application attributes, and (2) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In September 2017, the department provided evidence showing that it had taken steps to address these practices. Specifically, the department provided an export of its inventory, which showed that most of the systems listed contained a system description. According to department officials, some systems do not have a system description because the department's inventory policy allows bureaus to attach documents to the inventory, which include the system description, instead of populating the system description field. Further, the policy does not require a system description for systems in the disposal state. Moreover, the inventory did not include the business segment or function that the system supports. According to Treasury officials, the Bureau and Functional Unit fields within the inventory allow the department to map the systems to the business segments that they support. We followed up with the department to obtain this mapping. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided it. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to ensure that the inventory is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure its reliability.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of State partially met the following software application inventory practices: (1) specifies basic application attributes; and (2) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. Specifically, we reported that while the inventory included basic application attributes (e.g. name, description), it did not include the business function for the majority of inventory entries. Further, we reported that the agency did not provide evidence that quality control processes were in place to ensure the reliability of the data in the inventory. In July 2017, department officials stated that the department recently began a department-wide data call to obtain information on all IT assets and applications from each bureau, including aligning the assets and applications to a business function. Further, officials stated that they plan to analyze the results against their current data to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the IT asset inventory. In June 2019, the department provided evidence demonstrating that its inventory includes the business function for IT assets. In addition, State officials stated that the IT asset inventory that is posted internally for review is a high-level summary to facilitate monthly validation. However, as of January 2020, the department has not provided documentation showing that it has implemented the quality control processes to ensure the reliability of the data. We plan to continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Environmental Protection Agency had fully met three of the four practices to establish a complete application inventory, and partially met one. Specifically, the agency partially met the practice for including application attributes in the inventory, as although EPA did not identify the business function for every application. In December 2019, Environmental Protection Agency officials stated that the inventory now requires the business function to be included, and provided inventory update instructions that show the business function is to be included. In addition, agency officials provided instructions for senior information managers to update the inventory in fiscal year 2019. However, as of January 2020, agency officials had not provided an updated inventory, and thus we were not able to verify that the business function was added for all applications. We will follow up with the agency to obtain the updated inventory.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) partially met the software application inventory practice to regularly update the inventory with quality controls to ensure reliability. In November 2016, OPM officials stated that they were validating the data in the application inventory. In addition, officials stated that they were making progress in using automated scanning tools to update the inventory, including coordinating with the General Services Administration's Software Management Group which is working to standardize the use of automated inventory tools across the government. In June 2017, November 2018, and November 2019, we followed up with OPM to obtain documentation of these reported actions; however, as of January 2020, the agency had not yet provided supporting documentation. We are continuing to follow up with OPM to obtain documentation of its reported actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with our recommendation, noting, among other things, in its written response to our draft report, that a majority of the Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area systems are IT infrastructure, and not applications. However, we reported that the mission area nevertheless included a large number of enterprise and business IT applications which could benefit from rationalization, and we therefore believed our recommendation was still warranted. In March 2020, the department stated that it is formalizing a guide to assist components with implementing an application rationalization process, that will be used to rationalize the Enterprise Information Environment Mission Area systems. The department stated that it plans to perform annual reviews, and expects to start by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, DHS officials stated that they identified FOIA systems as a high cost function, and will modify existing processes to collect and review the cost, technical, and business information. In November 2019, DHS reported that it is continuing to make progress in acquiring a new enterprise-wide FOIA system by reviewing current capabilities. We plan to continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2017, department officials stated that the department's portfolio of IT investments, which includes the systems, sub-systems, and applications in the IT asset inventory, are rationalized bi-annually as part of the Office of the Chief Information Officer's IT Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) review processes. Further, officials stated that the systems and applications were also being rationalized as part of the process for updating the IT asset inventory. Officials stated that the department plans to review and update the department's CPIC guide to describe the IT asset inventory management process including the basic quality controls. In July 2019, officials reported that the department plans to have the updated guide completed by the end of fiscal year 2019. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided documentation supporting these efforts. We plan to follow-up with the department to obtain documentation of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration launched an updated version of Performance.gov. Our updated analysis of information presented on the site in August 2020 found that it does not meet all requirements. However, OMB continues to take action to address this recommendation. For example, Performance.gov does not include a required inventory of federal programs. In July 2020, OMB reported that it is working with agencies to address this requirement. Beginning with the fiscal year 2021 federal budget cycle, OMB and agencies plan to merge implementation of existing web-based reporting of performance and spending data to provide a more coherent picture of federal programs and activities. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-16-771, Aug 26, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with the recommendation but has not yet provided sufficient evidence that it had implemented the recommendation. In particular, as of August 2020, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has not yet reviewed the feasibility of performance measures as part of its audit program, and plans to do so only after implementing a future redesign of its audit program. We will continue to monitor HHS actions in response to this recommendation.
GAO-16-47, Aug 19, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9869
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has actions planned, taken, or under way to prepare a quantitative drilldown. In September 2017, Navy provided a listing of certain systems (DCAS, GLs, DDRS-B, and DDRS-AFS) it considered as Level 1 assessable units. However, the listing did not include a drilldown from the financial statement amounts through DDRS-AFS, DDRS-B, and DCAS to the receipt and disbursement source systems. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that Navy is implementing a new system that will enable them to complete a quantitative drill down for its Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT). The new system is not expected to be fully implemented until March 2021. In the interim, certain FBWT reconciliations are performed at DFAS, that may provide a drilldown capability of FBWT as reported in financial statements to the applicable general ledger amounts.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has actions planned, taken, or under way to prioritize audit readiness efforts for key Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) systems. In September 2017, Navy provided documentation for three systems, but this documentation did not address corrective actions for ineffective controls and the expected completion dates. Further, during our audit, Navy provided a list of 22 relevant systems. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that they are preparing an audit strategy for each system, and documenting control activities and computer controls for significant systems. We will continue to follow-up on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it had actions planned, taken, or under way to document control activities, information technology general computer controls for significant systems, systems documentation locations, and hardware, software, and interfaces. In September 2017, Navy provided documentation for 3 systems, but the documentation did not include system certifications or accreditations; system, end user, and systems documentation locations; and hardware, software, and interfaces. Further, during our audit, Navy provided a list of 22 relevant systems. In July 2020, a Navy official told us that they are preparing an audit strategy for each system, and documenting control activities and computer controls for significant systems. We will continue to monitor Navy's progress addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it had actions planned, taken, or under way to prepare an internal control assessment document. In September 2017, Navy provided support for actions taken to address this recommendation. However, the documentation provided did not summarize controls by assessable unit (DCAS, DDRS-B, or systems). Instead controls were listed by function (Treasury Reporting, Audit Readiness, and Departmental Reporting). In July 2020, a Navy official stated that documentation of overall Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) controls is in process and they are finalizing the Risk Control Matrix for FBWT to include controls at DFAS and at Treasury. The Rick Control Matrix is estimated to be completed by the end of August 2020. We will continue to monitor the progress in addressing this recommendation.
GAO-16-469, Aug 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' use of incremental development. Specifically, in September 2020, HHS officials reported that they have established a draft policy and anticipate publishing the finalized guidance by March 2021. We will continue to evaluate HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department had developed draft guidance to address our recommendation, but did not provide time frames for when the guidance would be finalized. Until the department establishes a CIO certification policy, Treasury will not be able to fully ensure adequate implement of, or benefit from, incremental development practices. We will continue to evaluate Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-16-602, Aug 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in a March 2020 written response, GSA stated that Technology Transformation Service (TTS) leadership will be briefed on the program's performance measures on a quarterly basis. We are following up with GSA to confirm that its TTS leadership has been briefed on the results on these performance measures. We will continue to evaluate GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in its December 2016 report to Congress, OMB developed three goals for U.S. Digital Service (USDS): (1) rethink how the federal government builds and buys digital services; (2) expand the use of common, platforms, services, and tools; and (3) bring top technical talent into public service. In addition, OMB established performance measures with targets for its third goal and for each of the program's major projects. However, OMB has not established performance measures for the first two USDS goals. Further, the program's third goal is not outcome-oriented. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that USDS established goals for and measured performance on each of the projects the program supports in its fall 2017 report to Congress. Although measuring performance on projects can provide USDS with valuable information, this effort does not address goals and performance measurement on the overall USDS program. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in its December 2016 report to Congress, OMB assessed the results of performance measures for one of the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) program's goals--bring top technical talent into public service--and for each of the program's major projects. However, OMB has not established performance measures for the other two USDS goals--rethink how the federal government builds and buys digital services; and expand the use of common, platforms, services, and tools. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that USDS established goals for and measured performance on each of the projects the program supports in its fall 2017 report to Congress. As of July 2019, USDS has not publicly released any subsequent reports to Congress or additional information on its goals and performance measures. Although measuring performance on projects can provide USDS with valuable information, this effort does not address performance measurement on the overall USDS program. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. In particular, OMB updated its digital service team policy to require that teams appropriately inform their chief information officers (CIO) regarding U.S. Digital Service (USDS) projects. However, the policy does not describe the responsibilities or authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and digital service teams. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that the program updated digital service team charters to address the role of agency CIOs. As of May 2020, USDS has yet to provide us with the updated digital service team charters. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-16-695, Jul 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its fiscal year 2017 congressional justification, IRS modified how its budget data were organized, including linking requested increases to future state themes, but did not clarify how current spending by themes relates to appropriation accounts. Information on current spending by theme and account is important to ensure transparency on the current funding levels to assist Congress in making informed budget decisions. As reported in October 2018 in GAO-19-108R, the themes under the Future State vision are now being pursued as part of IRS's strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 to 2022-issued in May 2018. IRS has been phasing out the use of the term Future State and did not include it in its fiscal year 2020 congressional justification. Including data on the themes in the strategic plan would provide additional transparency and improve the quality of the information available to Congress for budget deliberations.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2017, Treasury Department officials took steps to address the need to manually correct budget data for the fiscal year 2017 budget request. However, as of October 2019, we have not received documentation that they have done so for future budget years. Improved information would help Treasury and IRS better account for information technology resources. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress.
GAO-16-593, Jul 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) was responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department approved a cost baseline for one of the components of JIE, the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), and developed a cost estimate for another component, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services (ECAPS) program. The ECAPS cost estimate was substantially consistent with the practices described in the report. However, the JRSS cost estimate was not developed consistent with the best practices described in the report. Specifically, the department did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps in the JRSS cost estimate; however, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation. The officials also stated that planning for JIE components other than JRSS and ECAPS had not begun; therefore, there were no other JIE component cost estimates. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not yet implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network part of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) component; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In addition, In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that another JIE initiative, the Enterprise Collaboration and Productivity Services program, had an approved baseline schedule. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the schedule.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, it has not implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In March 2017, the JIE Executive Committee approved a schedule baseline for the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router network component of JRSS; however, the schedule was not consistent with the practices described in our report. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO said that the JRSS schedule had not been re-baselined and the department had not developed a schedule management plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to implement it; however, more needs to be done. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, the department has developed an inventory of cybersecurity knowledge and skills of existing staff. Specifically, we reported in our June 2018 report Cybersecurity Workforce: Agencies Need to Improve Baseline Assessments and Procedures for Coding Positions (GAO-18-466) that the department had developed an assessment that included the percentage of cybersecurity personnel holding certifications and the level of preparedness of personnel without existing credentials to take certification exams. In August 2018, the office of the DOD CIO stated that the department planned to identify work roles of critical need and establish gap assessment and mitigation strategies by April 2019. However, as of July 2019, the department had not provided an update on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of August 2018, it has not provided evidence that it has addressed it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE), and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. In May 2019, the office of the DOD CIO stated that it had developed a schedule to complete JIE security assessments. However, as of July 2019, the office had not provided the schedule or demonstrated that it has a strategy for conducting JIE security assessments that includes the rest of the elements of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however it has not fully implemented it. In its written response to our draft report, DOD stated that its partial concurrence was due to the language we used to introduce the recommendations. Specifically, we stated that the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to implement the recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for implementing JIE, and referred to a May 2013 memo from the Deputy Secretary of Defense directing DOD components to participate in and implement JIE under the direction of the DOD CIO. In response to DOD's comments, we revised the language used to introduce our recommendations. Specifically, we revised the language to call for the Secretary to direct the DOD CIO and other entities, as appropriate, to take the recommended actions. Since we made our recommendation, in April 2017, the JRSS program office documented the methodology, ground rules and assumptions, among other things, used to develop the cost estimate we reviewed in our report, and the JIE Executive Committee established the estimate as its JRSS cost baseline. However, the cost estimate documentation was not sufficient to address our recommendation. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that the cost estimate was well documented, comprehensive, accurate and credible. In May 2019, officials in the Office of the DOD CIO stated that it would provide documentation to address the gaps. However, as of July 2019, DOD had not provided the documentation.
GAO-16-545, Jun 29, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS provided GAO a slide deck titled "Prioritization Process for the Business Systems Modernization (BSM) Program/Projects" which describes a process for prioritizing BSM investments and capabilities within the investments. However, the slides were labeled "pre-decisional." In addition, they did not include specific procedures for prioritizing investments. In April 2020, IRS informed us that it had moved its target for fully implementing the recommendation to November 2020. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2018, IRS told GAO it had implemented the recommendation. As supporting evidence, the agency provided an April 2018 update to its Investment Performance Tool user guide along with briefing slides specifying actions taken to modify its processes to measure work performed by IRS staff. We reviewed the evidence provided and determined that it was not sufficient to close the recommendation as implemented. Specifically, while the Investment Performance Tool user guide included updated procedures for measuring work performed by IRS staff which aligned with best practices, it did not clearly state that earned value (or work performed) during an iteration should always be based on to the percentage of planned features or user stories that were completed for that iteration. In addition, IRS did not provide evidence that it had used its updated procedures for the Return Review Program investment. We followed up with IRS to obtain this documentation. The agency subsequently provided the requested documentation to us and, as of July 2020, we were reviewing it to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.
GAO-16-494, Jun 2, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it updated its CIO evaluation methodology to measure active risks in areas such as budget variance, performance, policy and governance compliance, risk management, and contract risk. HHS submitted a draft version of this methodology in June 2018. Upon reviewing this documentation, however, we did not see evidence that the department was factoring active risks into its CIO ratings. In May 2019, HHS officials stated that they planned to update their CIO rating methodology to focus on active risk; however, department documentation from August 2020 stated that the new CIO rating methodology is still in draft form and is not finalized. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that the department was amending its CIO rating review process to ensure that active risks are factored into its IT Dashboard CIO ratings. In August 2020, VA submitted documentation for this new process; however, this documentation did not state how the department incorporates active risks into its investments' CIO ratings. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with the recommendation, and, in an October 2017 response, stated that it currently evaluates risk as part of its IT governance activities. In March 2019, State informed us that its Bureau of Information Resource Management was developing a new policy and associated guidance for calculating its CIO risk ratings; however, as of September 2020, we have not received this new documentation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it updated its CIO evaluation methodology to measure active risks in areas such as budget variance, performance, policy and governance compliance, risk management, and contract risk. According to HHS, these risk areas reflect both internal and external risks that affect an investment's ability to accomplish its goals. HHS submitted a draft version of this methodology in June 2018. While this documentation showed that HHS factored investment qualities related to overall project riskiness, it did not specify that active investment risks were also being factored as part of the evaluation. Without an additional focus on active risk, this methodology is unlikely to ensure that HHS's CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing an investment. In May 2019, HHS officials stated that they planned to update their CIO rating methodology; however, per HHS documentation dated August 2020, this new methodology is still in draft form and is not finalized. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed with the recommendation and, in a written response, stated that it will ensure that CIO ratings reflect the level of risk facing its investments. In August 2020, VA submitted documentation for an updated CIO ratings process; however, this process documentation did not state how the department incorporates active risks into its investments' CIO ratings. Without a consideration of active risks, VA's CIO rating process may not produce ratings that reflect the level of risk facing VA's investments. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with the recommendation and has provided information on how investment risk is evaluated as part of its IT governance activities. In March 2019, State informed us that its Bureau of Information Resource Management was developing a new policy and associated guidance for calculating its CIO risk ratings; however, as of September 2020, we have not received this new documentation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-16-468, May 25, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. However, in July 2020, OMB stated that the implementation of this recommendation would be counter to the Administration's focus of prioritizing modernization activities specifically for High Value Assets and, as a result, it does not intend on implementing this recommendation. We disagree and believe that identifying and publishing a specific goal aimed at reducing non-provisioned spending (i.e., spending associated with systems that are not cloud or shared service-based) aligns with the Administration's Cloud Smart strategy to accelerate agency adoption of cloud-based solutions. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. In July 2020, OMB stated that agencies were directed to manage the risk to High Value Assets associated with legacy systems in OMB's December 2018 guidance. While OMB's guidance does direct agencies to identify, report, assess, and remediate issues associated with High Value Assets, it does not require agencies to do so for all legacy systems. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The agency had no comment on the recommendation. In June 2017, Treasury provided an update on the IRS's efforts to ensure that operational analyses are performed on investments in the operations and maintenance phase. However, the recommendation is intended to address issues at the department level and not just at the IRS. In 2017, Treasury declined to provide an update at the department level. As of April 2020, Treasury has not responded to requests for updates. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. In May 2019, the agency stated that it had conducted an assessment of its legacy system environment and identified 106 legacy IT assets across 18 components. In a March 2020 update, the agency stated that it is in the process of developing a policy to govern all legacy systems, to include modernization and decommissioning plans. The agency plans to publish this policy by March 2021. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The agency had no comment on the recommendation. In June 2017, Treasury provided an update on the IRS's efforts to modernize the IRS's legacy systems. However, the recommendation is intended to address issues at the department level and not just at the IRS. In 2017, Treasury declined to provide an update at the department level. As of April 2020, Treasury has not responded to requests for updates. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-16-501, May 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6244
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially agreed with this recommendation. In December 2018, OPM stated that it is working with its learning management system vendor to develop requirements, but had not yet targeted an expected completion date. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM needs to complete its efforts to ensure that it provides and tracks training for individuals with significant security responsibilities. As of March 2020, OPM has not provided evidence that it has completed these actions.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with our recommendation. The agency has conducted security control assessments for the two systems, but these assessments did not show that technical controls were comprehensively tested. According to VA, the agency will complete the next security control assessment in October 2019 and complete the system assessment report in December 2019. As of March 2020, the agency has not provided evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. Subsequent to VA informing us that it has completed implementation, we plan to verify the agency's actions.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB concurred with our recommendation. On December 9, 2016, OMB issued memorandum M-17-09, Management of Federal High Value Assets, which lists some existing policies and guidance and other actions that agencies need to take to protect IT assets. Further information is needed to validate implementation of the recommendation. As of March 2020, the agency has not provided evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. Subsequent to OMB informing us that it has completed implementation, we plan to verify the agency's actions.
GAO-16-325, Apr 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the department was in the process of addressing it. Specifically, a HHS official reported in August 2020 that the department had created a team to address cloud computing best practices and intended to finalize guidance on SLA key practices by June 2021. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department was in the process of addressing the recommendation. Specifically, a Treasury official reported that the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer was working with the Treasury Senior Procurement Executive to incorporate the key practices identified in our report into Treasury acquisition policy, which was expected to be completed by January 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and reported that the department was in the process of addressing it. In August 2020, a VA official reported that the department's Office of Information Technology was working to re-write existing SLA documentation following a review from the Office of Inspector General but did not provide a date when the guidance would be finalized. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-16-265, Mar 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation and is actively working on addressing the recommendation. We will continue to work with the agency to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the recommendation and is actively working on addressing the recommendation. We will continue to work with the agency to verify whether implementation has occurred.
GAO-16-168, Mar 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, GAO is working with the agency to determine what actions the agency has taken related to this recommendation.
GAO-16-182, Dec 17, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: According to agency officials, FDA's CIO met with the FDA Commissioner in 2016 where the updated IT strategic plan was reviewed and approved. The Commissioner identified key IT initiatives to be implemented within FY2017 and incorporated them into the CIO's performance management appraisal program. According to officials, the Commissioner requires the CIO to implement a plan to ensure that expected outcomes of the agency's key IT initiatives are achieved. Although FDA provided us with an excel spreadsheet that identifies IT initiatives at the agency's weekly FDA project meeting, we requested additional documentation regarding the plan the CIO is required to implement to ensure that expected outcomes of the agency's key IT initiatives are fulfilled. We contacted FDA in September and December 2019 and January 2020 to obtain additional information on the actions taken to implement the recommendation, but have not received a response. We will update the recommendation when additional information is obtained.
GAO-15-617, Sep 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Agriculture agreed with our recommendation and has taken initial steps to implement it. Specifically, as of May 2020, the department's integrated data collection submission to the Office of Management and Budget included reinvestment plans for 37 of 68 reported cost savings and avoidance initiatives. However, the department reported about $122.8 million in cost savings and avoidances in the 31 initiatives that did not include plans regarding how these savings would be reinvested. The department expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed with, and has taken initial steps to implement, our recommendation. Specifically, as of May 2020, the department's integrated data collection submission included reinvestment plans for one of the eight cost savings and avoidance initiatives reported. However, the seven remaining initiatives, with savings and avoidances totaling approximately $6.3 million, did not include reinvestment plans. The department expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury has not yet taken steps to implement our recommendation. Specifically, as of May 2020, the department had not yet updated its Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic Plan to include information regarding the approach to reinvesting savings from the consolidation of commodity IT resources. In addition, in an April 2020 e-mail, the department's GAO liaison stated that Treasury had not yet updated its IRM strategic plan, but might have other, more current, strategic documents that described its reinvestment plans. The department expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury has not yet taken steps to implement our recommendation. Specifically, as of May 2020, the department's quarterly integrated data collection submission to the Office of Management and Budget did not include reinvestment plans for 15 of the 27 reported cost savings and avoidance initiatives. For example, the department reported about $100 million in cost avoidances from its data center consolidation and optimization initiatives, but did not provide information regarding how it plans to reinvest these avoidances. The department expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs agreed with, and took initial steps to implement, our recommendation. Specifically, in November 2015, the department's Chief of Staff stated that the Office of Information and Technology was working to establish an office to close monitor program performance, deliver, cost, schedule, return on investment, and total cost of ownership, which will enable reinvestment opportunities. However, as of May 2020, the department's quarterly integrated data collection submission to the Office of Management and Budget did not include reinvestment plans for five of the 10 reported cost savings and avoidance initiatives. For example, the department reported about $229 million in cost avoidances associated with renegotiating an enterprise license agreement with Microsoft, but did not provide information regarding how it plans to reinvest these avoidances. The department expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency agreed with our recommendation, but has not yet taken steps to implement it. Specifically, as of May 2020, the agency's quarterly integrated data collection submission to the Office of Management and Budget did not include reinvestment plans for any of the 12 reported cost savings and avoidance initiatives. For example, the agency reported about $34.0 million in cost savings and avoidances in 2019 related to data center, commodity IT, and software licensing initiatives, but did not provide information regarding how it plans to reinvest these savings and avoidances. The agency expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the agency's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) agreed with our recommendation, but has not yet taken action to implement it. Specifically, in November 2015, OPM's Acting Director stated that information regarding the approach to reinvesting savings from the consolidation of commodity IT resources (including data centers) would be included in future updates to OPM's Strategic IT Plan. In August 2019, OPM's GAO liaison stated that the agency intended to update its Strategic IT Plan in fiscal year 2020 and intended to include reinvestment language as part of the update. However, as of May 2020, the agency had not yet updated its strategic plan to include this information. The agency expects to provide an update in June 2020. We will continue to evaluate the OPM's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-15-582, Sep 1, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and as of January 2020, is continuing to develop requirements for VBMS in order to develop functionality to replace legacy information systems. In addition, the department subsequently provided us with expected completion dates for implementation of claims and appeals processing, but has not provided a schedule for the implementation of pension claims processing. To fully implement this recommendation, the department needs to provide the expected completion date for pension claims processing and an estimate of the cost to complete remaining development and implementation of VBMS.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and reiterated its plans and procedures for decreasing the incidences of defects in each system release. However, while the most recent VBMS release (i.e., May 2019) showed a decrease in the number of high- and medium-priority level defects, the release in February 2019 showed an increase in the number of high- and medium-priority defects. In addition, both the February 2019 and May 2019 releases showed the presence of the highest severity defects--critical--which have extensive user impact and workarounds do not exist. We will continue to monitor VA's actions and progress in response to this recommendation.
GAO-15-618, Aug 17, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: According to EPA officials, the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) established an agency-wide electronic grants record workgroup in fiscal year 2016. The workgroup identified the contents of the electronic grant file, technical options, and evaluation criteria. OGD completed its alternatives analysis for scope, general approach, and requirements in fiscal year 2017 and EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: Implementation efforts are ongoing. According to EPA officials, OGD is conducting a multi-modular project to upgrade the agency's grants management IT system. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions), which had been targeted for deployment in March 2020. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
GAO-15-509, Jul 2, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2015, we suggested that Congress modify the Federal Credit Union Act to grant NCUA authority to examine technology service providers of credit unions. As of July 2020, Congress had not granted NCUA this authority.
GAO-15-431, May 21, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Commerce had not implemented this recommendation. In July 2018, the department provided an inventory that shows, by service provider and department component, the number of devices per rate plan and monthly rate; however, the inventory did not include the number of voice minutes, gigabytes of data, and text messages allowed per line per month. Furthermore, the department had not demonstrated that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the department had not addressed the recommendation. In July 2018, the department described steps it was taking to identify lines that were inactive for a period of three or more continuous months (zero usage). However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has established documented procedures that address the elements of our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with our recommendation; however, as of January 2020, the department had not implemented it. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that such an inventory has merits, but that maintaining one comes at considerable expense and effort. The department also stated, in 2016, that while it does not maintain a single, centralized device level inventory, the military departments track and manage their own devices and services . As we stated in our report, the inventory need not be generated centrally at the headquarters level; the department can compile a comprehensive inventory using its components' complete inventories. As of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that all its components had inventories of unique devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense stated that it partially concurred with our recommendation; and has taken steps to address it. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In response to our report, the department stated that it agreed that developing an inventory of mobile device contracts has merits, especially in a time of restricted government spending. The department also described several efforts it had undertaken to enhance mobile device management. However, as we stated in our report, any approach to managing mobile device contracts will be hampered by the lack of complete information on the contracts that are already in place. In August 2018, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department had not demonstrated that the inventory included all its components' mobile service contracts. In August 2019, the department described steps it was taking to ensure that it has a complete inventory of mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Homeland Security developed an asset and inventory management plan for managing devices under its enterprise blanket purchase agreement. The plan includes procedures for assessing devices for zero usage; however, it does not include procedures for assessing over and under usage. The department also has not demonstrated that it has established procedures for devices not covered by its enterprise blanket purchase agreement.We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Interior has not demonstrated that it has fully implemented this recommendation. As of January 2020, the department demonstrated that only one of its components, the Bureau of Reclamation, had an inventory of mobile devices and associated services. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Interior had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed this recommendation. In August 2019, the department developed an inventory of mobile service contracts. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had accounted for all of its mobile service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Justice has made progress implementing this recommendation; however, more remains to be done. Specifically, in response to our findings, in April 2015, the department's Chief Information Officer issued a memo that required components to establish procedures for regular reviews of invoices for wireless services to identify unused and underused devices or services, as well as any over-usage charges to service plans. One of the components we reviewed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, established procedures in July 2016 to monitor mobile device usage. In addition, the Justice Management Division (JMD) established procedures in May 2019 that apply to JMD as well some but not all other components. The other component we reviewed in our report, the Drug Enforcement Agency, had not established procedures that address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not demonstrated that it has implemented this recommendation. The department has inventories of mobile device; however, the inventories do not include the services associated with each device. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of State had not implemented this recommendation. In June 2019, the department said it has a Telecom Expense Management System which can be used to document an inventory of domestic service contracts; however, the department did not provide the inventory. Furthermore, the department did not demonstrate that it has an inventory of international service contracts. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Transportation had not addressed the recommendation. In December 2019, an official from the department's Audit Relations and Program Improvement office stated that all the department's telecommunication devices are managed through two programs and that these programs have mechanisms in place to ensure that telecommunications are managed in an effective and efficient manner. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided evidence to demonstrate that it had implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, the department stated that it had established enterprise-wide procurement vehicles for mobile devices. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it has an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not implemented the recommendation. We reported in May 2015, that NASA had an inventory of mobile devices and associated service information which included most, but not all, of the devices used by the agency. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that the agency was in the process of enrolling devices in a new mobile device management tool, and that when the approximately 15 percent of devices that are not currently on NASA's new End-User Services Technology contract are brought on the contract, NASA will have a monthly deliverable depicting the services of all mobile devices. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that NASA had established, on September 1, 2019, the NASA End-User Services and Technology contract to procure mobile services, but as of November 2019, had not yet included 15 percent of its devices on the new contract. We will continue to monitor NASA's efforts to develop and maintain a mobile services contract inventory as described in our report.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had not demonstrated that it had implemented the recommendation. In November 2019, NASA's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) stated that as part of enterprise mobility service contract deliverables, NASA requires monthly reports to monitor and optimize usage (zero, under, and over). NASA's OCIO also stated that the agency established role-based privileges to monitor and report on this activity agency-wide. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established procedures to assess device usage in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor NASA's implementation of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Treasury had not demonstrated that it has implemented the recommendation. In August 2019, an official from the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that the department was collecting and analyzing information on voice and data utilization. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had established procedures in accordance with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-15-315, Mar 31, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6253
Agency: Library of Congress
Status: Open
Comments: The Library of Congress generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in January 2017 the Library established a centralized Library-wide Project Management Office, located within the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Additionally, in June 2017 the Library updated its regulations to give the Project Management Office the authority to establish organization-wide policy for developing cost estimates. Further, in August 2017 the Project Management Office finalized guidance for developing cost estimates that generally includes the key practices discussed in our report. However, none of the cost estimates for three key investments fully met the practices associated with a comprehensive estimate. In October 2019, the Library provided evidence of its Monte-Carlo risk assessment process. We are currently assessing whether this process is consistent with the practices found in our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. We will continue to evaluate the Library's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Library of Congress
Status: Open
Comments: The Library of Congress generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in January 2017 the Library established a Project Management Office within the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and tasked the office with communicating and enforcing Library requirements for project management and systems development. Additionally, in June 2017 the Library updated its regulations to give the Project Management Office the authority to establish organization-wide policy for developing and maintaining schedules. Further, in August 2017 the Project Management Offices finalized guidance for developing schedules that generally includes the key practices discussed in our report. However, none of the schedules for three key investments fully met the practices associated with a well-constructed schedule. In October 2019, the Library provided the schedules that it uses to manage select projects. We are currently reviewing this scheduling documentation to determine the extent to which the Library is implementing its scheduling guidance.
GAO-15-282, Feb 26, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, DOD had made limited progress addressing our recommendation for business system programs; however, it had not addressed the recommendation for non-business system programs. Specifically, the department updated its instruction on business systems requirements and acquisition to include, among other things, guidance on establishing baselines against which to measure progress for developing needed business capability. However, the instruction did not explicitly require that a program baseline be established within 2 years. Specifically, according to the instruction, baselines may be established at the program level or at the release level (i.e., for a manageable subset of functionality in support of the business capability), within 2 years after programs have validated a business capability is needed and received approval to conduct solution analysis. If at the program level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of the first release or deployment. If at the release level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of each release or deployment. In January 2020, the department also issued interim policy for software-intensive systems. However, while the interim policy requires program managers to develop an acquisition strategy that includes delivering software within one year from the date funds are first obligated to acquire or develop new software capability, the interim policy does not require software-intensive system programs to establish a program baseline within 2 years.
GAO-15-247, Jan 27, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2019, Congress has passed several FAA authorization extensions and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 that did not include any actions related to this matter. We will continue to monitor legislation, and when we determine what steps the Congress has taken regarding this matter, we will provide updated information.
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.
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Veterans Affairs concurred with the recommendation but as of June 2020 has not provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.
GAO-14-675, Sep 18, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with our recommendation and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Office of Information and Technology (OIT) have been working jointly on projects since 2015 to improve and replace the IT system for the Family Caregiver Program. However, two of these projects were terminated without delivering viable software improvements or a replacement system. According to two independent assessments, these prior efforts lacked both effective leadership and implementation of the processes needed for requirements management. In March 2019, VA began a third project, the Caregiver Record Management Application (CARMA), in which OIT and VHA began to acquire and implement a commercial product to replace the program's existing IT system. In February 2020, VA reported that to support the administrative needs of the Family Caregiver Program it had transitioned from its previous IT system to CARMA, its new IT system, in two stages: 1) In October 2019, VA deployed an initial release of CARMA for data entry of veterans and caregivers newly participating in the program, and 2) On December 2, 2019 the transition of existing veterans and caregivers to CARMA occurred. VA also reported in February 2020 that further enhancements and improvements to CARMA would be released over the coming months. However, the department has not yet fully committed to a date by which it will certify that CARMA fully supports the program. As of July 2020, this recommendation remains open pending further updates.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. VA transitioned in late 2019 to a new IT system, the Caregiver Record Management Application (CARMA). However, the Department has not yet certified the readiness of CARMA to fully support the needs of the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (Family Caregiver Program). Prior to the transition to CARMA, VA had developed manual processes to obtain and monitor key data points, allowing it to reassess policies and procedures for the Family Caregiver Program. In its September 2019 update, VA reported that it anticipates being able to certify the IT system when proposed regulatory changes to enable the expansion of the Family Caregiver Program are finalized and the necessary changes which have an impact on IT are implemented. VA also reported that following certification, IT development will continue on IT requirements that do not directly impact VA's ability to expand the program, such as improving the program's ability to track and report on clinical appeals. As of July 2020, this recommendation remains open pending further updates on how VA plans to use data from the IT system to monitor and assess the program's performance.
GAO-14-450, Jun 5, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congressional action has not been taken. GAO will continue to follow up with relevant congressional committees.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation. Since the issuance of GAO's report, in February 2016, Congress directed the Coast Guard to develop a long-term plan to cover fiscal year 2017 and 20 years thereafter and that it should be updated every two years. In November 2017, officials told GAO that the Coast Guard was developing a 20-year long-term plan that specifically focused on the highest priority recapitalization and sustainment efforts for its assets and will focus on meeting the intent of the 2016 congressional mandate. However, as of July 2020, the Coast Guard has not completed this plan. At that time, officials said that the Coast Guard continues to refine the process to define the long term acquisition and capital sustainment needs of the Service and align them with published and anticipated fiscal top line budgets. The Coast Guard is working with internal and external stakeholders to define useful parameters in order to complete work to close this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor the Coast Guard's actions in completing its long-term plan given that GAO's recent work has found that the Coast Guard continues to pursue an unaffordable acquisition portfolio that is not likely to fully address all known and anticipated capability gaps.
GAO-14-413, May 22, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Department of Commerce reported that training will be concurrent with the implementation of the new inventory. It estimates the completion of this to be June 30, 2019. In October 2017, the department reported that they were reaching out to another federal agency to learn about the software license management training they offer to incorporate lessons learned into the Commerce's future training plans. However, as of November 2019, the department has not provided an update on these efforts. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Department of Transportation stated that it has developed a policy addressing components of centralized management and management of software licenses through the entire life cycle. However, Transportation's Order 1351.21 was issued in June 2009 and has not been updated since our report was issued to include the weaknesses we identified. Specifically, the order identifies the roles and responsibility, and central oversight authority for managing enterprise license agreements and does not specify policy on establishing goals and objectives of the software license management program and considering the software license management life-cycle phases to implement effect decision making and incorporate existing standards, processes, and metrics. We will follow up with the department to obtain evidence of the department-wide implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Environment Protection Agency reported that it is currently taking steps to develop a comprehensive policy that will address a centralized management program of licenses, an analysis to inform decision making, education and training goals and overall management throughout the lifecycle. In addition, The Agency stated that it is still leveraging the efforts of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation project as well as its Office of Acquisition Management's consolidation of its Microsoft suite. We will follow up with the agency to obtain supporting documents and continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, the Environment Protection Agency reported that it is currently taking steps to develop a comprehensive policy that will address a centralized management program of licenses. In addition, the agency stated that it is still leveraging the efforts of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation project as well as leveraging its Office of Acquisition Management's consolidation of enterprise licenses. We will follow up with the agency to obtain supporting documents and continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that the agency's IT asset management program requires training and communication, as appropriate for all key personnel. The agency also reported that on September 19, 2018, personnel associated with software asset management attended relevant training and will also participate in software training is currently being developed by the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Acquisition Institute and the Defense Acquisition University. We will follow up with the agency to obtain supporting documents and continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015, reported that it had developed a guide to capture enterprise architecture lifecycle activities including software licensing management, acquisition, and requirements during several points of the project lifecycle. In April 2018, the office reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation, but expect substantive updates later this year. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015 reported that it is finalizing a revised Life Cycle Management draft policy which will use stage gate reviews to evaluate the progress of projects including software licenses throughout the agency. According to OPM, once the new policy is approved, OPM subject matter experts will review project documentation during stage gates reviews to make written recommendations on whether projects should continue. OPM's Investment Review Board will then review that recommendation and other procurement documentation to make a final recommendation to the OPM Director. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation, but expect substantive updates later this year. We plan to continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015 OPM reported that it acquired an enterprise architecture repository tool and is collecting information on its software applications. OPM also reported that it is assembling and performing quality reviews on hardware and software lists currently maintained in spreadsheets, in its enterprise architecture systems database, and Remedy database in order to consolidate the entire hardware and software asset inventory. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation, but expect substantive updates later this year. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with this recommendation and in September 2015 OPM reported that it acquired an enterprise architecture repository tool and is collecting information on its software applications. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concurred with our recommendations and noted actions the agency plans to take. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Personnel Management concurred with our recommendations and noted actions the agency plans to take. In April 2018, OPM reported they have no changes to the status of this recommendation. We will continue to monitor its progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-14-283, Feb 12, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In July 2018, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) reported that the goal of the Chief Technology Officer's technical assessment of HUD's IT environment was to identify gaps and develop an implementation strategy and approach to establish a modernization roadmap. As of March 2020, OCIO reported that it had completed the technical assessment to identify gaps in IT. The department has also taken action to define an overall modernization approach, including the scope, implementation strategy, and schedule for modernizing its IT environment and systems. However, as of March 2020, HUD had not yet established measures for overseeing its modernization efforts.
GAO-14-44, Jan 13, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they plan to take actions to address this recommendation, as of July 2019 we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: Although department officials have stated that they are taking actions to address this recommendation, as of August 2020, we have not yet received information to validate agency actions. Subsequent to the agency sending documentation, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred
GAO-14-75, Dec 16, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials reported that they were implementing new requirements for qualified CDRs, but these requirements were not related to demonstrating improvement on the measures of quality and efficiency, as GAO recommended. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation beyond providing limited technical assistance to qualified CDRs through monthly support calls and an annual kick-off meeting. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-14-108, Dec 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In providing comments on this report, OMB generally concurred with this recommendation. The FAR Council members issued a timetable in Spring 2020 for the proposed regulatory changes to address the use of reverse auctions in response to GAO's recommendations and 2015 guidance released by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The notice of proposed rulemaking was planned for August 2020. As of August 10, 2020, the notice of proposed rulemaking had not been published. OMB officials did not provide a revised date when they planned to publish the notice.
GAO-14-5, Dec 3, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, we determined that NMB had taken some steps to further implement key information security practices, but had not fully implemented this recommendation. We reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB continued to only partially follow the eight key information security practices in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). NMB must take other steps, such as providing risk assessment documentation of its enterprise network for fiscal year 2019. NMB officials stated that the agency plans to address several of these practices by the end of fiscal year 2020. They further noted that they hired a Chief Information Officer and planned to hire additional staff and employ contractors to aid in these efforts.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, we reported in GAO-20-236 that NMB had taken some steps to implement information privacy practices, such as designating a privacy officer. However, NMB must take additional steps, such as specifying whether a system of records notice would be developed, as required by the Office of Management and Budget.
GAO-14-65, Nov 6, 2013
Phone: (202)512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, OMB had taken steps to improve transparency of and accountability for PortfolioStat, as GAO recommended in November 2013. In October 2015, the agency started displaying actual data consolidation savings data on the federal information technology (IT) dashboard. As of April 2018, however, OMB was not requiring that agencies report planned PortfolioStat cost savings stating this was as a result of agency feedback, and streamlining of data collection efforts based upon the decision that reporting on realized cost savings is more valuable than reporting on planned or projected cost savings.In March 2019, OMB stated that it was "exploring better approaches to cost savings as reported by agencies to the IT Dashboard." We are following up with OMB to determine whether these approaches include publicly disclosing planned and actual data consolidation efforts and related cost savings by agency.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, the Commerce described its process for updating its IT asset inventory as part of the budget formulation process and provided a mapping of investments to its enterprise architecture as evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. However, the department did not provide any policies and procedures supporting the process it described to us. In addition, it did not provide any evidence of controls to ensure that all investments had been captured in the enterprise architecture. In January 2020, the department told us that its Office of the Chief Information Officer had new leadership and as a result the department was expected to make significant progress in addressing the recommendation this year.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, Commerce officials told GAO about actions taken that they believed addressed the recommendation and provided supporting documentation. Specifically, they stated that they send out an annual data call for bureaus to provide their IT asset inventory as part of the budget submission process. They stated they also perform department-level validation of the bureaus' inventories and aggregate them into a single department inventory. As evidence, they provided a data call memo with supporting instructions and a template for bureaus to establish an IT asset inventory. They also provided examples of three bureau inventories received in response to data calls. In addition, they provided the final aggregated inventory (for fiscal year 2017) and department-level validation of bureau submissions. However, the department did not provide any policies or procedures documenting the process they described. In addition, we could not determine whether the creation of the department-wide inventory was a one-time effort or a recurring activity. In January 2020, the department told us that its Office of the Chief Information Officer had new leadership and as a result the department was expected to make significant progress in addressing the recommendation this year.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that it had efforts underway to further define the department's commodity IT baseline. In January 2019, our contact from the Office of the Chief Information Officer told us that the department had recently established an IT Purchase Request (ITPR) process for controlling spending that had a built-in IT asset inventory process that would address the recommendation. In August 2019, we received documentation on the ITPR process as part of an ongoing engagement. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with the recommendation, stating that the commodity IT construct implemented by OMB with PortfolioStat did not work with the department's federated management process. However, the department agreed that a strategy, consistent with the intent of achieving better buying power and control of commodity IT items, should be developed and implemented within the department using existing authorities and stated that it was in the process of implementing this strategy. In January 2019, the Office of the Chief Information Officer's Director for Performance Management stated that while the CIO did not have the authority to consolidate commodity IT spending, the department had taken actions he believed addressed the intent of the recommendation to gain visibility into IT spending. Specifically, he stated that the department established a policy to leverage its buying power for commodity IT purchases (for example for software licenses). In addition, the department recently established an IT Purchase Request (ITPR) process for controlling IT spending. In August 2019, we received documentation related to those actions as part of an ongoing engagement. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The department of Defense concurred with the recommendation and stated that it already reported data center consolidation savings and would continue to realize savings from the Enterprise Software Initiative, other strategic sourcing efforts and the implementation of the General Fund Enterprise Business System initiatives. Through other engagements, in August 2016, we had collected support for data center consolidation and Enterprise Software Initiative savings for fiscal years 2013 to 2015. In January 2019, the Office of the Chief Information Officer's Director for Performance Management told us that the department had not been tracking savings generated by other commodity IT initiatives due to the difficulty in doing so, however, it was tracking an "other" category of savings through OMB's integrated data collection instrument (IDC) process which he believed the intent of our recommendation. He noted that the "other" category tracks savings from various OMB IT reform initiatives. Mr. Johnson said he had sent a recent IDC report along with supporting documentation to GAO to address a recommendation made in GAO-15-296. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it is sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with the recommendation and stated that, in the future, USACE would fully describe the four action plan elements when reporting to OMB. In August 2016, the department reported that it had addressed and closed the recommendation in February 2015 and cited policies, procedures, and other supporting documentation as evidence. However, the department did not provide the supporting documentation. In April 2018, the department provided several documents as evidence of its efforts to address this recommendation, including an order outlining the capital planning investment management process for the fiscal year 2017. We determined that the documents did not support the department's claims. In January 2019, the department told us it would provide an update on the status of actions to address the recommendation. As of August 2019, the department had not yet provided any update.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with the recommendation and stated that it had efforts underway to further define the department's commodity IT baseline. In August 2016, the department reported that it had addressed and closed the recommendation in October 2014 and described several actions that it believed contributed to addressing the recommendation, including, continued improvements to data center reporting, and greater understanding of IT infrastructure costs. However, the department did not provide any documentation to support its claims. In January 2019, the department told us it would provide an update on the status of actions to address the recommendation. As of August 2019, the department had not yet provided any update.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Registry of Environmental Protection Agency Applications, Models and Databases (READ) system had a complete inventory of enterprise IT and business systems-two of three categories of IT assets that make up a commodity IT baseline-and that the agency had processes in place to regularly update this inventory to ensure its completeness (see GAO-16-511). We have been following up with EPA to obtain its inventory of IT infrastructure systems-the third commodity IT category--and determine the agency's process to ensure the completeness of this inventory. In a December 2019 update, EPA told us that it was working on a response to the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported making progress in addressing the three action plan elements through implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) and efforts to assess applications in its inventory. In June 2019, the agency provided supporting documentation. We are reviewing the documentation to determine whether it fully addresses the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: Between July and December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that it had implemented a managed print service contract for headquarters in 2014 and was preparing to award a new contract to also cover its regions. The agency also reported that it plans to use one of the government-wide contracts identified in OMB's policy on improving the acquisition and management of common IT for its end user computing needs. EPA, however, did not provide documentation supporting these efforts. In a December 2019 update, EPA told us that it was working on a response to the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, the department stated that its budget formulation process ensures that all investments are included in its enterprise architecture (EA). Specifically, the department stated that, as part of the budget formulation process, the EA group reviews investments and aligns them to the business areas within the EA framework by assigning them business reference model codes. To support its claims, in November 2019, the department provided a list of investments showing their alignment with the business reference model codes for the fiscal year 2021 budget formulation process. However, the department did not provide evidence of the EA group's review process. As of January 2020, we were following up with the department to obtain this evidence.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, NASA reported that it was making revisions to its enterprise architecture policy that would assist with ensuring that 100 percent of the agency's information technology investments are in the enterprise architecture. In July and December 2018, the agency provided updates on its efforts along with supporting documentation, though not enough to fully address the recommendation. In July 2019, the agency stated it also had efforts underway to centralize IT governance under the Chief Information Officer and this would contribute to reflect all investments in the enterprise architecture. The agency stated it would continue to update us on the status of its efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OPM stated that it was developing a service catalog with cost information and allocation components which together with the agency's software inventory would be used for cost avoidance moving forward. However, OPM did not provide supporting documentation. In addition, it was not clear whether the service catalog and software inventory would together include enterprise IT, IT infrastructure, and business systems, the three categories of IT assets that comprise a commodity IT baseline. We will continue to monitor OPM's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, OPM provided evidence that it had addressed the action plan element regarding the migration of two commodity IT areas to shared services. Specifically, OPM provided an August 2016 interagency agreement showing plans to migrate its financial management system to a shared service and a May 2018 interagency agreement showing plans to migrate its human resources and time and attendance system to a shared service. However, the interagency agreements were not signed. Regarding the action plan element to target duplicative systems or contracts that support common business functions for consolidation, OPM stated did that it had targeted laptops and mobile phones for consolidation. In addition, OPM did not provide any evidence of reporting to OMB for either action plan element. In February 2020, OPM stated that, in addition to entering into an interagency agreement for its financial management system and consolidating the procurement of agency-wide laptops and cellphones using an enterprise wide contract, it was also working to close two of its five major data centers to consolidate to three. OPM said that it was gathering the documentation to support its claims.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OPM stated that its IT help desk function had become a shared service starting in October 2019. However, OPM did not provide supporting documentation. In addition, OPM stated it did not have any updates on the IT asset inventory. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2014, the Department of the Treasury reported that it did not plan to consolidate commodity IT spending under the agency CIO. Specifically, the department stated that commodity IT investment decisions were consolidated under the Treasury Technology Investment Review Board which is co-chaired by the agency CIO and Assistant Secretary for Management; and that it did not see the benefit of combining the budget authorities of the various bureau infrastructure investments. In regards to establishing criteria to identify wasteful, low-value, and duplicative investments, in September 2014, the department stated that the Treasury Technology Investment Review Board and Technology Advisory Working Group had established an approach that considers risk, value and cost in reviewing investment requests to identify wasteful, low-value, and duplicative investments. As of May 2019, we were reviewing documentation we received from the department in September 2018 to determine whether the recommendation has been fully addressed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2014, the Department of the Treasury described several examples of processes it had established to identify opportunities to reduce duplicative, low-value or wasteful investments, including annual reviews of each major IT investment and monthly portfolio reviews. As of May 2019, we were reviewing updated information we received in September 2018 to determine whether the recommendation has been fully addressed.
GAO-13-663, Sep 25, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.
GAO-13-557, May 17, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has made significant progress addressing the recommendation; however, as of November 2019, more remained to be done. In particular, in 2015, we reported that the department had taken steps to improve the integration of business enterprise architecture information with other existing information, which allows DOD to identify information such as mapping of existing business systems to system functions. More recently, in 2017, the department awarded a contract to improve its business enterprise architecture. According to the department, the objective of the contract was to improve business and system optimization by providing mechanisms to ingest and discover enterprise architecture content from all department components and allow for cross-domain portfolio reviews to include duplication analysis. More specifically, the contract called for developing three major capabilities, including the ability to conduct process and system reviews within and across domains. In October 2019, the Office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) demonstrated that it had completed development of the three planned capabilities and the office said it was working to host the capabilities in a government-approved cloud environment. With regard to including business capabilities for the Hire-to-Retire and Procure-to-Pay business processes in the business enterprise architecture, the department stated that the new architecture is to identify the business capabilities and processes associated with Lines of Business, which will be defined as a decomposition of the products and services that the business enterprise delivers to the department's components. In September 2019, officials from the Office of the CMO stated that the department plans to review end-to-end processes that comprise the current business enterprise architecture for currency and relevancy. However, the officials did not indicate when they expect to complete this review.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, the Department of Defense (DOD) had not addressed the recommendation. In May 2013, we reported that, for the fiscal year 2013 certification of business systems, functional strategies included many, but not all, of the critical elements required by DOD's guidance. Specifically, not all functional strategies demonstrated linkages to business goals in DOD's strategic management plan, and not all included expected outcomes for all functional area goals. In addition, some, but not all, had performance measures in place for assessing progress toward achieving stated goals. However, none of the functional strategies included performance measures that reflected all of the key attributes identified in DOD's guidance. We also reported that for the 2014 certification cycle, the functional strategies had been improved. However, not all of them had performance measures that included all key attributes called for in the guidance. Specifically, all performance measures did not include baseline and target measures, and provide a rationale for the identified targets. In June 2018, DOD revised the required functional strategy elements in its defense business system investment management guidance. However, as of November 2019, the department had not ensured that its functional strategies include all of the elements identified in the guidance. The guidance still requires that functional strategies include business outcomes that link to goals in DOD's strategic management plan. In addition, while the guidance no longer calls for the key performance measure attributes that we assessed in our 2013 report (i.e., baseline and target measures and a rationale for identified targets), the new guidance requires that business outcomes include measurable targets. However, none of the fiscal year 2019 functional strategies fully addressed most of the required elements. For example, none of the functional strategies demonstrated that business outcomes were clearly linked to the department's strategic management plan goals, as required by the 2018 investment management guidance. In addition, none of the strategies included measurable targets, An official from the office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) demonstrated that the department's Integrated Business Framework-Data Alignment Portal, which is used to record functional strategies, includes business outcomes that are aligned to goals and objectives in the National Defense Business Operations Plan (i.e., the agency strategic plan). The official also demonstrated that most functional strategies link to at least one performance measure from the National Defense Business Operations Plan. However, the official agreed that the published functional strategies did not clearly link outcomes to the department's strategic management plan. Further, officials from the office of the CMO stated in September 2019 that the functional strategies for fiscal year 2019 were not revised for fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, DOD had not addressed the recommendation. In 2013, we reported that the department's investment management guidance did not specify a process for conducting an assessment or call for the use of actual versus expected performance data and predetermined thresholds for evaluating portfolio performance. In addition, the department did not call for assessments to be conducted in four key areas-benefits attained, current schedule; accuracy of project reporting; and risks that have been mitigated, eliminated or accepted to date. We also reported in 2013, that the department's investment management guidance identified four criteria and specified the associated assessments that were to be conducted when reviewing and evaluating components' organization execution plans in order to make a portfolio-based investment decision. However, the guidance did not call for the department's organizational execution plans to include critical information for conducting assessments associated with three of the four criteria. Specifically, it did not include information for conducting assessments associated with strategic alignment (i.e., information on alignment with the capital planning and investment control practices and Better Buying Power guidance), utility (i.e., interoperability among systems and system scalability to support additional users) and total cost (i.e., cost in relationship to return on investment). In September 2019, the department stated that the Office of the Chief Management Officer's investment management guidance, investment management training materials, and organizational execution plan, addressed elements of the recommendation. However, the documents did not specify a process for evaluating portfolio performance that includes the use of actual versus expected performance data and predetermined thresholds. Regarding ensuring that portfolio assessments are conducted in key areas identified in our IT investment management framework: benefits attained; current schedule; accuracy of project reporting; and risks that have been mitigated, eliminated, or accepted to date, the June 2018 investment management guidance requires organization execution plans to include risks and risk mitigation strategies. In addition, the investment management guidance requires the plans to include information about benefits attained. Specifically, the plans are to include progress against targets for business goals documented in functional strategies. However, the guidance does not address the remaining key areas identified in our IT investment management framework: current schedule; accuracy of project reporting; and risks that have been eliminated or accepted to date. In addition, the guidance does not call for this information to be used as part of portfolio assessments. Regarding ensuring that the documents provided to the Defense Business Council as part of the investment management process include critical information for conducting assessments, in September 2019, the department stated in a written response that business system certification decisions are made in accordance with criteria established in 10 U.S. Code Section 2222. However, as of November 2109, the department had not demonstrated that it established guidance that calls for documents to include critical information on alignment with the capital planning and investment control practices and Better Buying Power guidance), utility (i.e., interoperability among systems and system scalability to support additional users) and total cost (i.e., cost in relationship to return on investment), which are criteria it established in its investment management guidance for making certification decisions.
GAO-13-149, Mar 7, 2013
Phone: (202)512-4523
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: All the Matters for Congressional Consideration are contingent on the implementation of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
GAO-13-99, Nov 19, 2012
Phone: (202)512-6304
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress had taken a number of actions that affect the NTIS fee-based model for disseminating technical information. Specifically, for the past 5 fiscal years and in the current Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, NTIS is prohibited from charging customers for reports generated by legislative branch offices unless the agency tells the customer how an electronic copy of the report can be accessed or downloaded for free online. The act further states that, if a customer still requires such a report from NTIS, the agency should not charge more than what is needed to recover the cost of processing, reproducing, and delivering the document requested. It remains to be seen whether these requirements will be continued under the yet to be introduced House and Senate bills making appropriations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year 2021. Congress again has the opportunity to consider legislation that would ensure the assessment of the appropriateness or viability of NTIS functions.
GAO-12-791, Sep 26, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce has not implemented this recommendation. Since we reported in 2012 that the department had established metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes but not a method for measuring the metrics, the department issued an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan in April 2018. This plan included outcome metrics; however, the department had not documented a method for measuring the metrics. In January 2020, the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) stated that the department recently appointed a new CIO (acting) and was in the process of revisiting strategic planning initiatives and implementation to ensure they are congruent with the IT strategic vision and objectives. The Office of the CIO also said it was hiring a new Chief Enterprise Architect, which would impact previous initiatives and strategies. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that it would establish an approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes defined in the DOD Digital Modernization Strategy, by September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, the department had not provided documentation demonstrating that it had established metrics and a method for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of the Army had taken steps to address this recommendation, but much more remains to be done. Specifically, in December 2013, the department developed its Army Business Management Strategy, which included metrics to measure the number of business systems retired over five years and cost savings and avoidance through use of the Army's business enterprise architecture. However, as of January 2020, the department had not demonstrated that it had documented the steps to measure the metrics. In January 2020, the department's chief architect stated that the department was in the process of establishing a baseline architecture. We will continue to monitor the Army's efforts to establish an architecture and an approach for measuring architecture outcomes in accordance with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Energy demonstrated that it had taken steps to implement the recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the department developed a draft plan to measure business architecture performance. We will monitor the department's efforts to finalize and implement its plan.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor has not addressed the recommendation. In August 2020, the department stated that it was continuing to evaluate processes for reviewing and assessing enterprise architecture value.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the Department of State developed an enterprise architecture plan, which identified several benefits that may be achieved by executing the plan. These benefits included, for example, lower support and acquisition costs and reuse of technology and investments. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had established an approach for measuring the potential benefits in the plan. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency has not implemented this recommendation. In December 2019, the agency stated that its chief architect and technical architecture staff were working to reformulate the enterprise architecture program and described several goals and activities that were underway. The agency also stated that the program was examining industry best practices on architecture metrics to determine which would be best for EPA's enterprise architecture program. As metrics are adopted to assess the value of the architecture program, the program will work them into the agency-wide process for performance metrics. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not yet implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, NASA's Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Service and Integration said the agency was in the process of developing an enterprise architecture policy directive and procedural requirements. He anticipated that they would be completed in October 2020.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, the Small Business Administration had not implemented this recommendation. In August 2019, SBA developed an enterprise architecture program performance guide and value measurement plan. According to the plan, the agency plans to measure cost savings/avoidance and reduction of duplication. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has documented the steps to be followed to measure the outcomes. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that it had established a method to measure the cost savings/avoidance or the number of duplicate investments reduced.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, a Senior Analyst in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance stated that, as of January 2020, OPM's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) had established an approach for developing an enterprise architecture. The liaison also stated that, since May 2019, the office of the CIO had established bi-weekly checkpoints with leadership and stakeholders to monitor and report progress and to document established metrics. However, the agency has not demonstrated that it has established a documented method and metrics for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Agriculture demonstrated that it had established an approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes; however, it had not yet measured and reported them. The department conducted a survey in February 2020 that collected information such as the number of legacy systems that were identified and subsequently decommissioned, and the number of applications that have been eliminated as a result of application rationalization through use of enterprise architecture. The department stated that it will release the second survey in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, and the differences in the responses between the first and second surveys will be presented to the CIO Council to show the impact of enterprise architecture. The department did not state when it plans to report the results. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce has not implemented this recommendation. In April 2018, the department issued an Enterprise Architecture Value Measurement Plan; however, the department has not demonstrated that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. In January 2020, the department's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) stated that the department recently appointed a new CIO (acting) and was in the process of revisiting all strategic planning initiatives and implementation to ensure they are congruent with the IT strategic vision and objectives. The Office of the CIO also said it was hiring a new Chief Enterprise Architect, which would impact previous initiatives and strategies. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, the Department of Defense Office of the Chief Information Officer stated that it would establish a documented approach to measuring enterprise architecture outcomes defined in the DOD Digital Modernization Strategy by September 2020, and report outcomes by December 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Navy has not demonstrated that it has implemented our recommendation. In November 2017, the department described steps it had taken to address the recommendation. However, as of January 2020, it had not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Department of Energy had not implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, the department described steps it had taken to develop its enterprise architecture. For example, it said that the department had established a Technical Reference Model, which supports processes and criteria for selecting and reviewing software across the department's headquarters. The department said it used the reference model to identify software products that could be eliminated or consolidated to achieve cost savings. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documents demonstrating that it had measured and reported architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the status of the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Labor has not addressed the recommendation. In August 2020, the department stated that it was evaluating processes for reviewing and assessing enterprise architecture value.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, the Department of Veterans Affairs stated that it plans to measure enterprise architecture performance by the end of March 2020. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, the Department of State developed an enterprise architecture plan, which identified several benefits that may be achieved by executing the plan. These benefits included, for example, lower support and acquisition costs and reuse of technology and investments. However, the department did not demonstrate that it had measured and reported outcomes attributed to its architecture. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency has not implemented this recommendation. In December 2019, the agency stated that its chief architect and technical architecture staff were working to reformulate the enterprise architecture program and described several goals and activities that were underway. The agency also stated that the program was examining industry best practices on architecture metrics to determine which would be best for EPA's enterprise architecture program. As metrics are adopted to assess the value of the architecture program, the program will work them into the agency-wide process for performance metrics. We will continue to monitor the agency's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has not implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, NASA's Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Service and Integration said the agency was in the process of developing an enterprise architecture policy directive and procedural requirements. He anticipated that they would be completed in October 2020.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, the Small Business Administration (SBA) had not implemented this recommendation. SBA's Office of the CIO stated that it achieved IT cost savings and avoidance as a result of IT infrastructure service and support reduction and data center optimization in fiscal years 2014 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2019. In a March 2020 memo to GAO, the Chief Information Officer explained that the agency's enterprise architecture team reviewed IT acquisition requests, which led to reducing duplicative IT investments and resulted in the cost savings and avoidance. However, the agency did not demonstrate that it had reliably measured the cost savings and avoidance. Specifically, it did not provide documentation demonstrating how it calculated most of the savings it reported.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, a Senior Analyst in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of Internal Oversight and Compliance stated that, as of January 2020, OPM's Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) had established an approach for developing an enterprise architecture. The liaison also stated that, since May 2019, the office of the CIO had established bi-weekly checkpoints with leadership and stakeholders to monitor and report progress and to document established metrics. However, the agency has not provided documentation demonstrating that it has measured and reported enterprise architecture outcomes.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had not implemented this recommendation. Specifically, it had not demonstrated that it had measured architecture metrics that it had established in its April 2014 Enterprise Roadmap. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not fully addressed our recommendation. In March 2013, the office required agencies to submit annually an Enterprise Roadmap, which was to include an appendix on enterprise architecture outcomes. To prepare the appendix, the office provided agencies with a template to document architecture metrics and measurement methods. The template included examples of outcome metrics and a field where agencies were to document measurement methods. However, OMB did not provide details on the methods that agencies could use to measure architecture outcomes or require that agencies include the steps to be followed for measuring outcomes. In March 2019, OMB said that it was working with agencies to determine approaches for measuring and reporting outcomes achieved through enterprise architecture. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not demonstrated that it had fully addressed the recommendation. We will continue to follow up with OMB on its efforts to implement the recommendation.
GAO-12-423, Jul 30, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Interior has taken steps to identify and evaluate drilling risks, and its work is ongoing. For example, according to BSEE officials, BSEE's SafeOCS program is one effort through which data is collected on risk factors associated with drilling. BSEE expanded the SafeOCS program in 2016 to include required reporting of well control equipment and barrier failure incidents. Additionally, in 2017, BSEE completed two retrospective analyses of factors associating with risk, however, according to BSEE officials, both analyses were limited by the quality of the data. In December 2019, Interior officials stated that the Gulf of Mexico Region's Office of District Operations Support (DOS) has been developing an approach to apply a secondary review to drilling permits deemed to be "high risk." According to these officials, this secondary review will be performed by pre-selected subject matter experts, identified because of their experience with certain aspects of drilling operations. To determine what drilling permits should receive a secondary review, DOS explored a variety of approaches before settling on a two-prong method. Because efforts remain ongoing, it is too soon to assess the extent to which these efforts will be successful. Until such policies are fully implemented and shown to be effective, Interior may not be able to adjust and evaluate its oversight--including inspections--in a cost-effective manner.
GAO-11-587, Jul 20, 2011
Phone: (202)512-9286
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In March, 2017, IRS issued its Portfolio Investment Plan Process Description Manual for selecting and prioritizing new and ongoing operations support activities. The manual includes criteria for prioritizing selections; and provides for comparing assets against one another to create a prioritized portfolio; and ensuring executives' funding decisions are based upon the process for selecting and prioritizing activities. In March 2018, IRS updated the manual and also issued related detailed procedures. In May 2019, IRS stated that its Information Technology/Strategy and Planning group had developed a prioritization process and associated scoring criteria to help facilitate decision making for business systems modernization programs, projects, and capabilities. The agency noted that improvements were being made to the process and full implementation was anticipated for June 2019.In April 2020, IRS informed us that it had moved its target for fully implementing the recommendation to November 2020. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts to implement the recommendation.
GAO-10-115, Oct 23, 2009
Phone: (202)512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.
GAO-09-56, Oct 3, 2008
Phone: (202)512-6570
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In GAO-09-56, GAO recommended the Secretary of Transportation consider and evaluate practices and principles for making conditions under uncertainty and for using data in light of issues encountered in developing evidence on high-clockspeed trends affecting highway safety that are characterized by uncertainty. GAO had studied driver distraction involving electronic devices, in particular cell phones with texting capability and identified these evolving electronic devices as a high clockspeed trend. DOT reports several actions on distracted driving, specifically: (1) an Executive Order to federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles; when using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; or while driving privately owned vehicles when they are on official business; (2) the Secretary called on state and local governments to (a) make distracted driving part of their state highway plans, (b) pass state and local laws against distracted driving in all types of vehicles, (c) back up public awareness campaigns with high-visibility enforcement actions; (3) the Secretary directed the Department to establish an on-line clearinghouse on the risks of distracted driving and also (4) pledged to continue the Department's research on how to best combat distracted driving. DOT also notes that the Department's www.distraction.gov website provides information on the latest data on distracted driving and that 34 states have passed laws against texting and driving since the 2009 announcement by the Secretary of DOT.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: DOT has not responded to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: DOT has not responded to this recommendation, but DOT announced a distracted driving summit September 30-October 1, 2009, with a limited number of invitees, and invited the GAO Assistant Director on this report to participate. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated that the purpose of the summit is to "to address the dangers of text-messaging and other distractions behind the wheel." The summit will include "senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety advocates, law enforcement representatives and academics" who will convene in Washington, DC "to discuss ideas about how to combat distracted driving."
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: DOT has not responded to this recommendation.