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: "Internal controls"
GAO-21-69, Oct 19, 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.
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-20-604, Sep 29, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-652, Sep 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.
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-20-615, Sep 9, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2989
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it was committed to placing increased leadership emphasis on real property asset controls to ensure mission readiness, audit readiness, testing for existence and completeness, and maintaining internal controls.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it was committed to placing increased leadership emphasis on real property asset policies and instructions to ensure consistent and repeatable existence and completeness verifications.
GAO-20-599, Sep 8, 2020
Phone: (202)512-8777
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.
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-586, Aug 25, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3406
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that it has already taken steps to address this recommendation by updating guidance to federal entities for the preparation of the fiscal year 2020 Agency Financial Reports or Performance and Accountability Reports. In addition, Treasury stated that it has drafted a memo to the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to seek clarification of existing guidance related to reporting differences for federal entities that prepare financial reports according to FASB standards.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that it has already taken steps to address this recommendation by updating guidance to federal entities for the preparation of the fiscal year 2020 Agency Financial Reports or Performance and Accountability Reports.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that it drafted a memo to the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to seek clarification of existing guidance related to reporting differences for federal entities that prepare financial reports according to FASB standards.
GAO-20-602, Aug 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-642, Aug 18, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
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.
GAO-20-566, Aug 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3406
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the CFO, including the formulation and financial execution of the budget, planning and performance, risk management, internal control, financial systems, and accounting. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language to specify that the deputy CFO shall assist the agency CFO in the performance of each of the duties of the agency CFO. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
a. The plan should include actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and better linking performance and cost information for decision-making.
b. The plan should be developed in consultation with the CFO Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Data Officer Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, CIGIE, GAO, and other appropriate financial management experts. (Matter for Consideration 3)
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for a government-wide 4-year financial management plan and an annual financial management status report. The plan is to address actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and better linking performance and cost information for decision-making. The plan is to be developed in consultation with the CFO Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Data Officer Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, CIGIE, GAO, and other appropriate financial management experts. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the CFO of each CFO Act agency to prepare, in consultation with financial management and other appropriate experts, an agency plan to implement the 4-year financial management plan prepared by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to achieve and sustain effective financial management in the agency. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the Director of OMB to prepare comprehensive financial management performance-based metrics, which are to be used to evaluate the financial management performance of executive agencies. These metrics are to be included in the government-wide and agency-level financial management plans, and agencies' performance against the metrics are to be reported in annual financial management status reports. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the head of each CFO Act agency to identify key financial management information needed for effective financial management decision-making. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the head of each CFO Act agency to annually assess and separately report on the effectiveness of internal controls of the agency over financial reporting and other key financial management information. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill (S. 3287) introduced in February 2020 proposed changes to the CFO Act. Among the proposed changes was language that calls for the financial statement auditors of each CFO Act agency to report on their evaluation of internal control over financial reporting and other key financial management information. We will continue to monitor the status of this bill.
GAO-20-553, Jul 17, 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.
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-20-332, Jun 18, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2989
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and highlighted steps taken or planned to address this recommendation. Specifically, in FY19, the Air Force assessed the current-state of the risk management programs throughout the Air Force and developed a maturity model, implementation plan, and a governance structure to comply with OMB A-123 requirements. These enhancements will be implemented and formalized in policy in FY20. Further, beginning in FY19, the Air Force Senior Assessment Team (SAT) and the Senior Management Council (SMC) monitored corrective action plans for material weaknesses identified internally and by independent public accountants, including their impact on the Air Force's ability to achieve its enterprise objectives. In addition, the Air Force developed a process for the SAT and the SMC to discuss corrective action plans for material weaknesses on a quarterly basis as opposed to an annual basis, which will be evidenced in the form of board briefings and meeting minutes. Additionally, in FY19 the Air Force engaged the Enterprise Productivity Improvement Council to serve as the Air Force Risk Management Council (RMC) to oversee enterprise risk management as defined by their Charter, which was signed in February 2020. The Air Force will refine its policies and procedures to clearly specify the risks associated with the material weaknesses being addressed by the Air Force governance boards. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described steps taken or planned to address the recommendation. The Air Force SAF/FM performs both entity-level control assessments against all internal control components and principles and performs process level control assessments for internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems. The Air Force Audit Agency and the Air Force Inspector General have performed assessments related to operations and compliance. The Air Force will document those roles and responsibilities in formal policies. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described steps taken or planned to address this recommendation. The Air Force test plans for internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems tie back to their relevant risk frameworks embedded in authoritative audit guidance. The framework used for financial reporting is the Financial Audit Manual, and the framework used for financial systems is the Federal Information Systems Controls Audit Manual, and include the nature, scope and timing of procedures performed. The Air Force's process-level internal control test plans are aligned with business process-level risks and objectives and are not directly associated with the Air Force's strategic objectives. The Air Force Business Operations Plan identifies strategic objectives, not business process-level objectives. Additionally, the Air Force considers previously identified internal control deficiencies in its annual documented internal control assessment scoping process. The Air Force will refine its policies and procedures regarding the use of test plans including operational and compliance controls. Due to the need for policy, procedure, and documentation updates required for operational and compliance controls, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine policies, procedures, and documentation by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will design policies and procedures to determine assessable units and verify that results are current on an annual basis. Due to the need to reevaluate the Air Force's assessable unit structure and the associated change management that will be necessary to implement the changes to sustain an effective program, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2021 and publish the policies by September 2022.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will design policies and procedures to consider the impact of waivers to the overall assessment of the system of internal control. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described steps taken or planned to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Air Force is implementing multiple changes to the Air Force's ERM and internal control program, including improved governance, standardized processes and documentation for enterprise risk management, entity-level and process-level controls, training, fraud risk management, and data quality management. Training content in FY20 was updated to reflect additional information, including definitions for internal controls and considerations for determining material weaknesses for operations. The Air Force will continue to update its the policies, guidance, and training to coincide with the current progress of the program. The Air Force will continue to refine the audience of its training to verify that those responsible for implementing and assessing ERM and internal controls are trained sufficiently. Due to the need for policy, procedure, documentation, and training updates required for operational and compliance controls, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, documentation, and training by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will verify that all definitions and concepts in its policies are current and consistent with other authoritative guidance. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions taken or planned to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Air Force performs annual training to Major Commands, Direct Reporting Units, and Functional Executives. In FY20, the Air Force included business process assessable leads in this training. The Air Force plans to continue to refine the audience of its training to verify that those responsible for implementing and assessing ERM and internal controls are trained sufficiently by September 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions taken or planned to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Air Force's scoping procedures, beginning in FY19, consider materiality, both quantitative and qualitative risk, as well as risks identified in the enterprise risk management process. The Air Force assesses internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems using a risk-based approach as evidenced currently in documented procedures and testing templates. The Air Force will refine its procedure documentation to include the assessment of internal controls over operations and compliance using a risk-based approach. Due to the need for policy, procedure, and documentation updates required for operational and compliance controls, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, and documentation by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions taken or planned to address the recommendation. The Air Force documents processes and assesses internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems related to mission critical assets that includes determinations as to internal control design, implementation, operating effectiveness and risks. The Air Force will enhance its approach for documenting processes and assessing internal controls over operations and compliance not related to financial reporting and financial systems through policy. Due to the need for policy, procedure, and documentation updates required for operational and compliance controls related to mission-critical assets, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, and documentation by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force reports material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems related to mission critical assets through SAF/FM, but it will solidify its reporting channels for material weaknesses in internal controls over operations and compliance through policy. Due to the need for policy, procedure, documentation, and training updates required to appropriately report deficiencies in internal control over operations and compliance, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, documentation, and training by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will develop procedures to enhance communication between business process leads and Air Force unit managers to verify that deficiencies are reported appropriately in supporting statements of assurance. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, as well as the change management needed to implement additional communications and protocol processes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2021 and publish the policies by September 2022.
GAO-20-442, Jun 17, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that it plans to clarify and adjust its current and future guidance to its payment reporting sites to require that the sites (1) develop and maintain procedures to support implementation of its payment integrity requirements for identifying, tracking, and reporting improper payments, and (2) require payment reporting sites to certify that the procedures have been developed and implemented. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that it will (1) take measures to strengthen and enhance the existing payment integrity monitoring and quality assurance program by conducting period payment reporting site visits and (2) establish a payment integrity working group to identify best practices for incorporation into DOE processes. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said they plan to develop and implement processes and procedures for tracking questioned costs to resolution. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said it will conduct annual look-back analyses to the extent possible to determine if prior year reporting exceeded the $100 million threshold, and therefore could be subject to additional reporting requirements. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said it will revise and enhance procedures defining the OCFO quality assurance process to (1) define the criteria for assessing the adequacy of payment reporting sites' justifications, and (2) review the payment reporting sites' justifications against the criteria defined. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE disagreed with the recommendation, stating in its comments that it has an ongoing Fraud Risk Management Working Group and that officials have developed a Fraud Risk Management and Data Analytics Implementation Plan to strengthen DOE's capability to prevent, identify, and recover improper payments and fraud. However, DOE's plan is still in draft form and, according to DOE's technical comments, they will not begin using data analytics until fiscal year 2021. In addition, DOE said that existing payment recapture activities to identify and recover improper payments are sufficient. However, as we discuss in the report, DOE determined that it does not need to conduct payment recapture audits based on justifications submitted by the reporting sites. We continue to believe that by evaluating whether it could identify enough additional improper payments to make payment recapture audits cost-effective, such as by performing audits at a limited number of sites, DOE would have an opportunity to identify and recover additional improper payments or have better information to justify that payment recapture audits are not cost-effective. We plan to monitor DOE actions related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE did not agree with the recommendation to develop and document the rationale for the scale used to score risk factors and weighting of payment sites, stating that its risk assessment evaluates the volume and dollar amount of payments by payment category, payments subject to manual controls, and fluctuations in volume and dollar amounts. However, we are recommending that the OCFO document the weighting of all its risk factors, including its decision to consider as equal the risks identified by all sites-regardless of the dollar amount of outlays. We continue to believe that, because DOE did not properly document how it developed and considered risk factors during its fiscal year 2018 risk assessment, it cannot ensure that the process produces a reliable assessment of whether DOE is susceptible to significant improper payments. Regarding the consideration of inherent risk, DOE said that the Payment Integrity Risk Assessment directs payment reporting sites to consider inherent risk as part of DOE's Internal Control Program. However, even if none of the sites identifies the known lag in identifying improper payments as a risk, based on our review of DOE's Agency Financial Reports, this lag is a risk to DOE as a whole. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOE should document in its risk assessment process its consideration of the known lag in identifying improper payments. We plan to monitor DOE actions related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE did not agree with the recommendation, stating that sufficient processes are in place for ensuring the accuracy of payment reporting sites' risk assessments. DOE also stated that OCFO's Payment Integrity Guidance instructs payment reporting sites to maintain detailed information supporting risk assessments. However, as we discuss in the report, 5 of the 10 sites we reviewed did not provide sufficient explanation or documentation supporting their ratings for several of the risk factors. We continue to believe that by developing, documenting, and implementing policies and procedures to require the OCFO to review documentation supporting payment site risk assessments, DOE would enhance its ability to adequately monitor its decentralized improper payment risk assessment process and help ensure that individual payment reporting sites accurately score their risk factors, leading DOE to obtain a more accurate and reliable assessment of its overall risk of susceptibility to improper payments. We plan to monitor DOE actions related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that itwill clarify the quality assurance process for the payment reporting sites' ratings; however, DOE will not override the individual payment sites' risk determinations. Instead, DOE plans to work as needed with payment reporting site officials to determine the appropriate risk ratings. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these actions.
GAO-20-454, Jun 16, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-357, Jun 9, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In a May 2020 letter signed by the NNSA Administrator that provided agency comments on our draft report, NNSA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. However, NNSA stated that by December 2020 the agency plans to complete a strategic management plan that will more clearly articulate the integration of management controls for the various components of its microelectronics activities. NNSA stated that it believes this action is consistent with our recommendation. We are encouraged by this planned action and will evaluate the completed strategic management plan to determine if it meets the intent of our recommendation.
GAO-20-377, Jun 1, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will develop an action plan to address the recommendation to better align its contingency plan with OMB guidance. When we confirm what actions Commerce has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation and and stated that it has begun to take steps to better address OMB guidance on contingency plans. When we confirm what actions DHS has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) partially agreed with the recommendation. IRS agreed with one element of our recommendation to include additional detail in its agency contingency plan and stated that it is in the process of adding procedures for resuming program activities following a government shutdown into its contingency plan. IRS did not agree with the other elements of the recommendation because it believes it has already addressed plans for a potential prolonged shutdown and flexibilities for supervisors if employees are unable to return to work at the end of a shutdown in its contingency plans. We agree that while IRS has included some details on these elements in its plans, we continue to believe that it should provide more detail, such as points in time when the furlough status of an employee may change, how many employees would be affected, and the legal basis for the changes, within its publically available contingency plan to fully address these elements. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts in this area.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has already begun addressing our recommendations on aligning its contingency plan with OMB guidance. When we confirm what actions USTR has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that the International Trade Administration (ITA) has documented its shutdown planning processes and recall processes for furloughed employees during a shutdown. When we confirm what actions ITA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has already begun addressing our recommendations on documenting its shutdown processes. When we confirm what actions USTR has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security agreed with the recommendation and stated that Customs and Border Protection plans to analyze existing systems to determine which is best suited to track and document employee work during a government shutdown and will ensure that the chosen system is available should a future shutdown occur. When we confirm what actions CBP has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with the recommendation but stated that because Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not have systems capable of efficiently restoring physical access for furloughed employees, it would have to reinstate employee access individually and the cost would be substantial. DHS stated that CBP plans to update procedures to ensure more comprehensive workspace access guidance for furloughed employees. We continue to believe that physical access controls are important during shutdowns in order to prevent misuse of government resources. We encourage CBP to improve their systems to be able to efficiently implement such controls and will monitor CBP's efforts going forward.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with this recommendation. IRS stated that it believes that it has effective controls in place to manage physical workspace access during a shutdown. In addition, IRS said that it believes that implementing additional access controls do not justify the corresponding resource investments. We continue to believe that IRS should improve its access controls, which currently rely on managers and furlough letters to communicate limits on workspace access. While we recognize the costs of increased access controls, government shutdowns are unique events that require additional access controls in order to prevent potential misuse of government resources and will monitor IRS's efforts to address it.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has made the Executive Office of the President (EOP) aware of the recommendations on developing controls for physical workspace access during a shutdown. We will continue to monitor USTR's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreed with the recommendation. DHS stated that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) believes that furloughed employees must be able to passively monitor the status of the government shutdown and access important agency communications using DHS-issued electronic devices. Additionally, disabling and reactivating thousands of employee user accounts during a shutdown posed a significant burden. DHS said that CBP plans to update shutdown procedures to clarify allowed use of DHS-issued electronic devices by furloughed employees. We agree that CBP should update procedures on workspace access as suggested, and continue to believe that virtual access controls are important during shutdowns in order to prevent misuse of government resources. We encourage CBP to improve their systems to be able to efficiently implement such controls and will monitor CBP's progress going forward.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service disagreed with this recommendation. IRS stated that it believes that it has effective controls in place to manage virtual workspace access during a shutdown. In addition, IRS said that it believes that implementing additional access controls do not justify the corresponding resource investments. We continue to believe that IRS should improve its access controls, which currently rely on managers and furlough letters to communicate limits on workspace access. While we recognize the costs of increased access controls, government shutdowns are unique events that require additional access controls in order to prevent potential misuse of government resources and will monitor IRS's efforts to address it.
Agency: Department of Commerce: International Trade Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce agreed with the recommendation and stated that the International Trade Administration (ITA) has established and documented internal controls to limit virtual workspace access to excepted or exempt employees during a government shutdown. When we confirm what actions ITA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. USTR stated that it has made the Executive Office of the President (EOP) aware of the recommendations on developing controls for virtual workspace access during a shutdown. We will continue to monitor USTR's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-20-417, May 7, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS disagreed with our recommendation, preferring to maintain the status quo in its policy and procedures. However, by doing so, DHS is missing important opportunities to prevent negative acquisition outcomes and the potential for wasted resources. In its response, DHS noted its processes for major acquisitions, however, DHS service programs and contracts did not rise to the level of being classified a major service acquisition.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation, maintaining that the factors considered when waiving a Procurement Strategy Roadmap are not static. We believe, however, that documenting the factors considered will help ensure that the decisions to waive the Procurement Strategy Roadmaps are made consistently, transparently, and help maintain institutional knowledge.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will update the Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions Analysis job aid to require the identification of a special interest function when applicable.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation maintaining that the components are certifying that they have sufficient internal capacity or federal employees available for oversight within the Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions Analysis. We continue to believe, however, that without guidance, each component is making its own determination about which factors to consider, and DHS does not know how or whether the components are considering the federal workforce available to oversee service contracts in need of heightened management attention, or what steps, if any, the components are taking to mitigate risks if there are not enough federal personnel available to oversee the contracts after award.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will develop guidance that identifies oversight tasks or safeguards that personnel can perform, when needed, to mitigate the risk associated with contracts containing closely associated with inherently governmental, special interest, or critical functions.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS did not concur with this recommendation stating that its annual Congressional Budget Justification already contains substantial service contract information. We maintain, however, that the service contract information currently included limits visibility for both DHS and Congress into requested and actual service requirements costs.
GAO-20-360, May 4, 2020
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation. In its agency comment letter, the department noted that FEMA plans to engage field leaders on enhancements to its coach-and-evaluator program to develop a plan to address identified challenges. DHS also reported that FEMA plans to increase training offerings and align its curriculum so that FEMA Qualification System status matches workforce capability. DHS anticipates completion by March 31, 2021.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation. In its agency comment letter, the department reported that FEMA plans to convene subject matter experts to develop mechanisms that demonstrate how effectively FEMA's disaster workforce deploys to meet mission needs in the field. Expected completion is March 31, 2021.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation. In its agency comment letter, the department stated that FEMA is working to finalize and implement some staff development initiatives we described in our report, such as the FEMA Deployment Performance Evaluation Directive, which will provide guidance on performance reviews for deployed staff. DHS anticipates that FEMA's efforts to implement will be completed by March 31, 2021.
GAO-20-480R, Apr 30, 2020
Phone: (202)512-9377
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Wage and Investment organization will update the Courier Contingency Plan polices and procedures to provide for appropriate segregation of duties or other curative measures.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Wage and Investment organization agrees that actions need to occur to address duplicate tax refund conditions through improved manual refund procedures to require (1) initiator to document the justification for bypassing the Integrated Automated Technologies (IAT) tool warning related to potential duplicate tax refunds on taxpayers' accounts and (2) managers to review the justification documented for bypassing the IAT tool warning for reasonableness prior to approving manual refund forms. However, IRS also stated that it was unable to commit to implementing a corrective action plan at this time due to budgetary constraints on system enhancements.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that the CFO organization will determine the reasons for business unit(s) non-compliance with established policies and procedures related to timely recording of receipts and acceptance of goods and services and, based on this evaluation, develop an action plan that once completed will provide additional tools to aid the business units in reasonably ensuring compliance with established requirements.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that the CFO organization will update policies and procedures to include additional instructions needed to calculate the future lease payments due on the non-cancelable leases with terms greater than one year and will also create an automated calculation to determine the number of remaining months of lease payments.
GAO-20-389, Apr 16, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity, and a plan to attain mature technologies for each development area. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with a cost estimate of ABMS development activities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with the affordability analysis for the fiscal year 2021 budget request. In addition, the department plans to provide an affordability analysis as part of the fiscal year 2022 budget request submission to Congress. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with documentation of decision-making authorities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-240R, Apr 14, 2020
Phone: (202)512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The agency concurred with the purpose and intent of this recommendation, stating that the level of information it included in notices for public comment concerning such matters complied with WIOA requirements and provided a meaningful opportunity for public comment: it did not indicate that it would provide more detailed information in the future. While we acknowledge that DOL is not required to publish its methodology in public notices, we believe that including such information can provide greater transparency in assisting the public and the Congress in understanding the agency's decision-making used to select centers for closure. DOL included detailed information on the methodology used to identify centers for proposed closure in its 2014 and 2016 public notices. As such, we believe ETA should take action to implement this recommendation in the event that the agency proposes Job Corps centers for closure in the future.
GAO-20-308, Apr 9, 2020
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open
Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. They expect their newly expanded JOM program workforce to develop, publish and implement a comprehensive JOM policy and procedure that includes a systemic process for identifying JOM contractors and maintaining a complete and accurate list of contractors. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open
Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. The BIE, BIA and other partners will work collaboratively to publish and implement a policy and procedure that accurately tracks and monitors timely disbursement of JOM funds to these contractors. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open
Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. They expect that their newly expanded JOM program workforce will expedite the BIE's review and information collection efforts. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open
Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. SIE and JOM staff will be tasked with developing a technical assistance framework for contractors and a training plan as part of the wider JOM program policy and task procedures. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open
Comments: Interior concurred with this recommendation. The BIE, BIA and other partners plan to work collaboratively to develop an inter-bureau policy that clearly identifies each agency's roles and responsibilities. They are also developing a data-informed workforce analysis for the JOM program. They will continue to develop and implement a data-informed workforce strategy to identify human capital needs and clearly identifies and assigns critical JOM-related functions among BIE divisions, offices and staff. We will monitor the progress of these efforts.
GAO-20-336, Apr 1, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2623
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, USDA stated that the Food and Nutrition Service should formalize its existing processes into a standard operating procedure to analyze the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) state-level root causes to identify potential similarities among states, in order to improve development and implementation of SNAP agency-level corrective actions, if appropriate.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, USDA stated that a proposed action plan will be developed to revise USDA's procedures for monitoring the progress and measuring the effectiveness of improper payment corrective actions. Processes will focus on the impact corrective actions have on the root causes of improper payments.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Education stated that Federal Student Aid (FSA) will continue to evaluate and refine its processes to measure corrective actions and the effectiveness of these actions. Further, Education stated that FSA's measurement of corrective action effectiveness and root cause identification will gain additional precision as FSA collects annual improper payment data and builds upon the new baseline of statistically valid improper payment estimates. Education stated that FSA annually measures the overall effectiveness of its corrective action plans collectively against the improper payment reduction targets, rather than measuring the effectiveness of each individual corrective action. However, OMB guidance directs agencies to measure the effectiveness of each individual corrective action annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, HHS elaborated on the improper payment corrective action plan process that is called for in OMB guidance. HHS stated that OMB guidance provides agencies the flexibility to measure the effectiveness of corrective actions and believes that this flexibility is vital to its oversight processes to reduce improper payments.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that each year it indicates in its corrective action plan that IRS will continue to work with Treasury to develop legislative proposals that will improve refundable credit compliance and reduce erroneous payments.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that each year it indicates in its corrective action plan that IRS will continue to work with Treasury to develop legislative proposals that will improve refundable credit compliance and reduce erroneous payments. Although Treasury has made certain legislative proposals, it has not made proposals to specifically help address EITC eligibility criteria issues. Additionally, Treasury's strategy does not include identifying and proposing additional legislative changes needed to help reduce EITC improper payments.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on our draft report, SSA stated that it will determine the most cost-effective strategies to remediate the underlying causes of payment errors and monitor, measure, and revise the strategies as needed.
GAO-20-361, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In June 2020, GSA said the agency would validate system data through regional and broker outreach and fully utilize validated system data to manage the broker program. The agency also said it will develop a quality control plan and follow-up on outcomes. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Although GSA initially did not concur with this recommendation, the agency stated in June 2020 that it agrees with the recommendation and will take steps to implement it. Specifically, GSA plans to revise the broker performance standards and document broker effectiveness through lease cost avoidance, timely lease replacement, and earned commission credits. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.
GAO-20-216, Mar 31, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation and stated that NOAA's NMFS will work to implement it to the extent possible. We will continue to monitor NMFS' efforts to do so.
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation and stated that NOAA's NMFS will work to implement it to the extent possible. We will continue to monitor NMFS' efforts to do so.
GAO-20-281, Mar 26, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD (S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance requiring the military departments to monitor work order completion for housing privatized under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative based on a combination of resident input, timeliness of work order completion, and number of repeat work orders for the same repair. The guidance also required increased tracking of MHPI project work orders by installation staff. Moving forward, the ASD(S) plans to issue quarterly program review guidance that establishes oversight objectives for the military departments to monitor the physical condition of MHPI housing over the duration of their project ground leases, formalizing the requirement that the data be monitored by the Chief Housing Officer. DOD expects this to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Secretary of the Army has taken several steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the Army published the Portfolio and Asset Management Handbook creating a multi-tiered assessment approach of performance metrics to measure the health of each privatized home through inspection, assessment, satisfaction, and feedback. The Army and the private housing partners revised the Incentive Fee Performance Management Plan, placing increased emphasis on resident satisfaction and work order/maintenance management. The Army also put Commanders in charge, ensuring Army leadership at every Army installation is tracking housing quality and safety. In late 2020, the Army plans to review and evaluate these actions and make a determination by 31 Jan 2021 if any changes or revisions are needed to best implement the recommendation. As such, we will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Air Force is engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the Air Force tasked each of the Military Housing Offices to inspect all move-in, move-out, and change of occupancy maintenance events and all emergency, urgent, and life, health, and safety work orders, which is outlined in Air Force guidance. The Air Force is also engaging in several ongoing actions. In response to a memo to the military departments to provide consistency of performance incentive fees, the Air Force was negotiating with the privatized housing project owners to update performance incentive fee metrics in accordance with ASD directed categories and weightings. As of August 2020, agreements had been finalized with 2 partners and work was ongoing with the remaining partners. In addition, the Air Force was working with the project owners to deploy Satisfacts, a survey tool to independently measure resident satisfaction with projects' work order performance, across all Air Force projects with an expected completion by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these recommendations.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy and Marine Corps are engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a centralized electronic data warehouse, which receives data from privatized housing partner maintenance systems to display work order and survey performance dashboards. By February 2021, the Navy expects to complete the development of metrics displayed by the data warehouse to include key service call performance metrics and resident feedback data. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing a web-based monitoring matrix tool housing officials can use to evaluate the performance of privatized housing partners. The tool is intended to provide improved tracking capabilities and improved accessibility to information, thus providing more consistent oversight and improved advocacy service members and their families. The Navy is also working to hire 247 additional Navy and Marine Corps housing staff to review and analyze private partner provided recurring maintenance and customer satisfaction reports in an effort to strengthen oversight and monitoring, with an estimated completion of September 2020. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the status of these and other efforts.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: e Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD stated that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, plans to issue a policy directing the military departments to establish, to the maximum extent practical, minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for MHPI housing unit work order collection to aid in comparability across installations and projects, and for tracking trends over time. However, DOD noted that the department cannot mandate changes to existing MHPI project legal documents. DOD estimates that this effort will be completed by December 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance directing the military departments to exercise proper oversight to ensure Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects perform in accordance with legal agreements, to include due diligence in monitoring and auditing project maintenance records and other project performance data. The guidance also required military departments to review their entire portfolios of MHPI projects to ensure accurate and appropriate work order management processes. In response to the new guidance, DOD noted that the military departments put in place appropriate oversight measures and undertook the required reviews, though the investigations of project business practices were ongoing in some cases. As another step, the ASD(S) plans to issue guidance directing the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by their respective MHPI Project Owners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. DOD expects this to be completed by the end of September 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation based on the fact that the draft report listed the incorrect office as the source for addressing the deficiency, but subsequently changed its response to concur after the recommendation was directed to the appropriate office in the final report. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) plans to issue guidance establishing a department-wide process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way effective with the survey collection effort in Fiscal Year 2021. The department expects this effort to be completed by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) would provide additional explanation of the MHPI resident satisfaction data collected and reported in future annual Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) reports to Congress, effective with the annual report covering fiscal year 2019. DOD noted that the additional information will include, among other things, an explanation of the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data. As of August 2020, the annual MHPI report covering fiscal year 2018 was in final coordination and the department noted that the report would addresses a vast majority, but not all, of the requirements identified in our recommendation. DOD noted that the additional information would be provided in the next annual MHPI report. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its response, DOD noted that the Army developed a "Plain Language" briefing as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that included the Army Housing Office's roles, responsibilities, location, and contact information at each privatized housing project site. DOD noted that the intent of the briefing was to ensure that all residents were aware of their ability to directly contact Army Housing Office and/or the Garrison Commanders. DOD stated that the briefing was disseminated to all of the Military Housing Offices, who are using it in newcomer briefings, and stated that the briefing would be provided to all current residents of privatized military housing, but that measure would not be tracked due to attrition. In addition, DOD noted that Headquarters, Department of the Army was tasking Army Materiel Command to develop a more detailed plan to communicate to residents the difference between the Army Housing Office and the private housing partner. The Army's intent is to not only capture residents upon their arrival at an installation, but making the services of the MHO known over the duration of a resident's time on at installation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy has taken various steps to address this recommendation, with additional steps planned. For example, the Navy has ensured that each installation has a specific issue resolution process description marketing flyer available, both in hard copy and on the public housing websites, with a reminder that residents can contact both the privatized housing property manager and the Navy housing office with any issues. Moreover, every housing unit has been provided with a refrigerator magnet reminding residents that they can and should contact the Navy housing office if they have any issues with their home. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have established a requirement to contact each privatized housing resident not later than 15 days after move-in and again 60 days after move-in to provide an opportunity to request assistance and remind them of available support. Moving forward, the Navy has an ongoing effort to require private housing companies to market the same messaging as the service issue resolution processes for the MHOs that they support, for consistent advocacy messaging to the tenants. The information will be added to PPV partner websites, printed material and resident handbooks. The Navy also plans to use its annual survey to tracks resident satisfaction and awareness of the Navy's issue resolution process, with expected completion by October 2020. In addition, the Marine Corps has identified a near-term initiative to procure name tags for all MHO employees to wear, identifying themselves as distinct and separate from privatized housing property management company, which will be standardized across all USMC installations. The Marine Corps also plans to develop a standard welcome aboard package to include magnets and other items with key point of contact information. The Marine Corps expects these efforts to be completed by the end of September 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, as the Chief Housing Officer, planned to issue a policy establishing the assessment of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project financial viability as part of quarterly program reviews as a long-term requirement. The department noted that the program review data would be augmented by input from the MHPI companies, who are assessing the likely impact of proposed initiatives in conjunction with their third party lenders. The department expected this effort to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
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-20-323, Feb 20, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary 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: Office of the Secretary 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: Office of the Secretary 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: Office of the Secretary 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: Office of the Secretary 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: Office of the Secretary 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: Office of the Secretary 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-20-200, Feb 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Justice: United States Marshals 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 Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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: United States Marshals 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 Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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: United States Marshals 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 Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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: United States Marshals Service
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-250, Feb 19, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS reported that USCIS plans to develop a standardized pre-departure training and provide this training to all detailees prior to deployment to the family residential centers. DHS estimated that these actions would be completed by September 2020. As of August 2020, USCIS told GAO that the number of noncitizens processed under expedited removal has decreased dramatically as a result of Coronavirus Disease 2019. Therefore, details to the Family Residential Centers have largely been paused. USCIS noted that the Asylum Division is reviewing the credible fear and reasonable fear training requirements; working on an enhanced training module; and, developing a standardized pre-departure training by December 31, 2020. USCIS plans to provide the training to all detailees prior to deployment to the Family Residential Centers during calendar year 2021, should the details resume. Providing pre-departure training, in addition to USCIS's basic training for new asylum officers, would help USCIS ensure that officers from all asylum offices are conducting efficient and effective fear screenings of families.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS reported that USCIS planned to explore ways to modify its case management system so that asylum officers can record whether an individual received a positive credible fear determination as a principal applicant, dependent, or in the interest of family unity. USCIS plans to make any appropriate changes to its case management system and train asylum officers on these changes by December 2020. As of August 2020, USCIS reported that the agency remains on track to complete this work as planned, provided staffing is not affected by USCIS budget issues. Having complete data in its case management system on all outcomes of credible fear screenings at family residential centers would better position USCIS to report on the scope of either the agency's policy for family members who are treated as dependents, pursuant to regulation, or USCIS's use of discretion in the interest of family unity.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on a draft of our report, DHS reported that USCIS will explore ways to collect additional information on credible and reasonable fear case delays in its case management system. USCIS plans to modify the system, as appropriate, to instruct users on the changes, and begin collecting and analyzing the information by December 31, 2020. As of August 2020, USCIS reported that the agency remains on track to accomplish this work by the end of calendar year 2020, provided staffing is not adversely affected by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and USCIS budget issues. Collecting additional information in its automated case management system on case delays would provide USCIS with more readily available information and analyzing such data could help USCIS identify case delay reasons relevant in the current environment for officers conducting fear screenings and better position USCIS to mitigate the reasons for the delays and improve efficiency in case processing.
GAO-20-236, Feb 14, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation and said it would take action to address it, completing these actions by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation and said it would take action to address it, completing these actions by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. Agency officials said they would take action to address it, but did not provide a time frame for completion.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. Agency officials said they would take action to address it, but did not provide a time frame for completion.
GAO-20-294, Feb 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
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: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Phone: (202) 512-2989
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. They stated that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) will update the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) and implement procedures to help ensure Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) reconciliations are performed consistently and appropriate research on the causes of any difference arising from these reconciliations is reviewed and documented by all DFAS sites. Further, DFAS will update internal documentation/policy to outline DFAS roles and processes for FBWT reconciliations as well as include guidance on the execution of DOD's FMR FBWT reconciliation requirements. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. They stated that the Department is developing a checklist of required supporting documents for incorporation into the DOD Financial Management Regulations (FMR). They will update the DOD FMR Volume, 6A, Chapter 2 to define the required supporting documentation for system generated accounting adjustments. Additionally, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) will update internal documentation to include narratives outlining the business rules for system generated accounting adjustments with the required supporting documentation. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department intends to collaborate with the financial community to update the category codes within the DOD Financial Management Regulations (FMR). Specifically, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense will perform a comprehensive review of Journal Voucher Category Codes listed in DOD FMR, Volume 6A, Chapter 2 and update regulations based on feedback. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service will update internal documentation and procedures to reflect any code changes identified in the revised DOD FMR. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is July 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department plans to update the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Form 9339 and develop and conduct refresher training to all users of the Form 9339. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is September 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department is collaborating on utilizing existing data to identify and resolve out-of-balances and update DOD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 6A, Chapter 2 to include a section conveying out-of-balance accounting adjustments are not authorized. Root cause analysis efforts will be performed in conjunction with corrective action plans (CAPs) for recommendations 6--8. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department, in conjunction with the Director of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), intends to utilize existing advanced analytics tools to research and document root cause analyses. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department intends to collaborate with the financial community, including the Director of the Defense Financial and Accounting Service (DFAS), and utilize existing tools for documenting and implementing consistent procedures for action plans of accounting adjustments. The analytical tool, Advana will be used to analyze the action plan code for consistent analysis to be performed across the DOD. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is February 2021. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department, in conjunction with the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, plans to utilize existing tools to define and measure the outcomes of accounting adjustments. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is April 2021. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
GAO-20-120, Jan 9, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SSA agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that it had revised related policies in February 2020, and had planned to issue guidance and video-on-demand training to further clarify policies and procedures in this area. However, SSA said its efforts to maintain mission critical activities amid the COVID-19 pandemic have delayed further implementation of this recommendation and a specific implementation date could not be provided at this time.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SSA agreed with this recommendation. The agency said it had planned to issue guidance reinforcing its policy on properly documenting decisions involving the Drug Addiction and Alcoholism evaluation process. However, SSA said its efforts to maintain mission critical activities amid the COVID-19 pandemic have delayed implementation of this recommendation and a specific implementation date could not be provided at this time.
GAO-20-132, Jan 9, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that it has taken steps to better ensure the completeness of vendor FSS sales reporting, including by conducting more active monitoring of the sales data submitted by vendors. These steps are ongoing, but NAC has reported a decrease in the number of FSS contractors not reporting sales.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has conducted additional outreach to veteran-owned small businesses regarding FSS participation, and plans to conduct analysis of these businesses' participation in FSS by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has taken several actions to more consistently obtain VHA user feedback on the FSS program, including holding meetings with each VHA regional contracting office and participating in VHA integrated project teams and other recurring meetings. We have requested documentation of these activities, but VA has yet to provide it.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and NAC reported in August 2020 that it has taken steps to make existing guidance on the FSS program more accessible to FSS contracting staff. We have requested more documentation from VA to confirm that the guidance is comprehensive.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and NAC reported in August 2020 that it has implemented additional introductory training for new FSS contracting staff, as well as quarterly training events for all FSS contracting staff. We have requested additional documentation from VA on the content of the quarterly training.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it has met with VA and agreed to develop an interagency memorandum of understanding by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it has met with VA and agreed to develop an interagency memorandum of understanding by December 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, GSA stated that it is working to develop updated delegation of authority and will provide further details by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has confirmed that existing timeliness goals are appropriate, and that NAC officials meet on a quarterly basis to discuss barriers to meeting these goals. We have requested more detail from NAC on the barriers they have identified and steps they are taking to address them so that we can assess whether they are comprehensive.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA reported that NAC has developed a checklist for assessing the completeness of submitted offers, and that new offers are currently processed in an average of two days. NAC is considering adoption of an automated offer intake system. We have requested additional details from NAC on the recent average offer processing time.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, VA stated that it is analyzing duplication of contracting across the department as part of its Category Management efforts, and expects to complete an internal report on this issue in early 2021.
GAO-20-101, Dec 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update their annual personal property reporting requirements. DOE anticipates having this recommendation implemented by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, DOL indicated in its 180-day letter that they concurred with the recommendation, and have taken steps to improve the monitoring and oversight of Job Corps Property. This includes modifying the GSAXcess approval process by elevating review of all GSAXcess requests made by Job Corps Centers to DOL's Employment Training Administration's (ETA) national office. ETA is also working with DOL's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) to develop a process for GSAXcess review that includes identifying approval levels for each category of property, identifying categories of property requiring additional review and approvals, and coordinating and streamlining access request procedures. These changes will be reflected in DOL's Office of Job Corps standard operating procedures (SOP), which is expected to be issued at the end of fiscal year 2020. DOL expects to provide training to Job Corps staff and Job Corps Centers in support of the SOP that will be provided annually. GAO will continue to monitor DOL's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, USDA's 180-day letter has not been received.
Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update internal policies, and provide personal property information on DOE's internal informational website known as Powerpedia. DOE anticipates implementing this recommendation by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation, and has taken steps to revise the Personal Property Reporting Tool (tool). GSA has added relevant authorities to the tool as recently as July 2019, and will continue to contact agencies to ensure relevant authorities are included in the tool. GSA is also evaluating technical updates to the tool to ensure that reporting agencies select an appropriate authority when reporting personal property. GSA plans to complete these actions by July 31, 2020, and inform agencies of these changes in their guidance by the end of fiscal year 2020. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement the recommendation.
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it concurred with the recommendation. GSA will better communicate with agencies to better understand the confusion of reporting on loaned excess property, as reporting requirements are in statute, regulations, and guidance. GSA also plans to review and update by July 31, 2020, relevant regulations and guidance in this area including Federal Management Regulation Bulletin B-27, "Annual Executive Agency Reports on Excess and Exchange/Sale Personal Property." GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-115, Dec 19, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, SEC updated its Reference Guide for Compliance with Section 961 of the Dodd-Frank Act to require the Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Enforcement, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, and Office of Credit Ratings to develop and maintain written policies and processes for conducting systematic assessments of the effectiveness of procedures applicable to the staff who perform examinations of registered entities, enforcement investigations, and reviews of corporate financial securities filings. The added requirement for each division and office to develop policies and processes is a positive step toward addressing this recommendation. However, until the divisions and offices establish such policies and processes, this recommendation remains open. SEC staff stated that the divisions and offices are currently working on developing their individual frameworks for assessing staff procedures and will likely be done by the end of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor these efforts.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Division of Corporation Finance
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Division of Corporation Finance is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Division of Corporation Finance provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Division of Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Division of Enforcement is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Division of Enforcement provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Office of Credit Ratings
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Office of Credit Ratings is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Office of Credit Ratings provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.
GAO-20-202, Dec 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, DOJ reported that OJJDP is engaged in a comprehensive effort to improve performance measures. The final step of this process will be the development of performance targets. According to DOJ, OJJDP anticipates setting initial targets for its discretionary grant programs by October 2021 and for the Title II Formula Grant program by March 2023. We believe these actions, when effectively completed, will address our recommendation. We plan to provide an update on OJP's progress in late 2021.
Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Assistant Attorney General for Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2020, DOJ reported that it awarded a new contract in January 2020 that includes a requirement to continue conducting annual fraud risk assessments and update associated fraud risk profiles using the GAO Fraud Risk Framework. DOJ further reported that it will develop a fraud risk tolerance for DOJ grants and prioritize residual fraud risk against that tolerance when it conducts this assessment. We believe these actions, when effectively completed, will address our recommendation. We plan to follow-up with DOJ and provide an update in early 2021.
GAO-20-130, Dec 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and has developed an action plan to implement it. In January 2020, GSA officials told us that GSA will change the method for calculating the average cost per square foot performance measure by now using the actual rent agencies paid to GSA in the calculation. GSA officials also stated that GSA will post this information annually to performance.gov. We will continue to monitor GSA's implementation of these efforts.
GAO-20-46, Dec 3, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-154, Nov 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3489
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was considering a fleet-wide survey, timed for a later date when more Surface Warfare Officers have completed new training courses and implemented their training. In addition, the Navy listed other means it employs to collect feedback, such as student surveys at the end of training courses, leadership visits and conferences, and Commanding Officer updates. Our emphasis on collection of fleet-wide feedback from all Surface Warfare Officers and trend analysis remains critical to help the Navy understand the value of its training programs at various career stages and in the diverse operating environments across the fleet.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was conducting the planned fleet-wide Officer of the Deck competency checks in 2020, and that it intends to use a system of ten career milestone assessments for future performance measurement. The Navy stated that it may or may not hold subsequent rounds of the Officer of the Deck competency assessments depending on performance indicated in other career milestone assessments. In our report we identified the importance of continuing the current Officer of the Deck competency assessments through at least 2024 because that is when new officers that complete the full set of new initial ship-driving training courses will be eligible for assessment. The Navy used the Officer of the Deck competency assessments in 2018 to establish a performance baseline, and we believe that the Navy should apply the same standard to measure performance changes for Surface Warfare Officers that complete new training courses moving forward.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. However, in its official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence, the Navy indicated that its existing policies already meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the Navy stated that its Officer of the Deck Underway Personnel Qualification Standards provide standard evaluation criteria for Officer of the Deck qualification. In our report, we noted that while the Personnel Qualification Standards provide a common list of required experiences, they do not provide a common understanding of proficiency in completing these experiences. Instead, proficiency determination is left to the discretion of the ship's Commanding Officer, which has led to wide variation in ship-driving proficiency across the fleet. Therefore, we continue to believe that the Navy should provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporate these criteria into surface fleet guidance.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. In official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence the Navy stated that its Surface Warfare Career Manual establishes guidance for the implementation and use of the Mariner Skills Logbook, and that the logbook will contribute information to allow proficiency trend analysis over time. However, while the Surface Warfare Career Manual identifies the offices responsible for logbook activities, it does not include a specific plan for the use of logbook data to analyze proficiency trends over time or to benefit individual officers. Our emphasis that the Navy develop a plan to analyze and use Surface Warfare Mariner Skills Logbook data to aid decision-making remains valid, and when implemented should assist the Navy in determining the relationship between SWO experience and ship-driving proficiency.
GAO-20-85, Nov 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
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-20-122, Oct 29, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.
GAO-20-47, Oct 28, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Division of Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-20-27, Oct 23, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC reported that the agency was undertaking further improvements of its fraud risk management program consistent with this recommendation. FCC did not indicate a completion date. We will continue to monitor FCC's progress related to establishing a dedicated antifraud management entity.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC reported that the agency was working with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which is the entity responsible for the day-to-day administration of the high-cost program, to implement this recommendation. FCC stated that USAC will conduct a fraud risk assessment of the high-cost program, but did not specify a time-frame for this effort. We will continue to review FCC and USAC's progress toward completing this assessment, and any steps taken to routinize this assessment.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC reported that the agency was working with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which is the entity responsible for the day-to-day administration of the high-cost program, to implement this recommendation. FCC reported it will ensure the results of the high-cost program's fraud risk assessment, along with other efforts to implement the GAO fraud risk framework, result in an overall fraud risk strategy. FCC did not indicate a completion date for these efforts, and we will continue to track FCC progress in this area.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC reported that it was considering ways to improve the model-based support mechanism for rate-of-return carriers participating in the high-cost program. FCC did not specify a time-frame for this effort. We will continue to review FCC's efforts related to this recommendation, including FCC efforts, if any, to verify the model's cost estimates.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC reported that it was considering ways to improve the model-based support mechanism for rate-of-return carriers participating in the high-cost program. FCC indicated that any such improvements may help facilitate the transition of carriers from legacy support mechanisms to the model-based support mechanism. FCC did not provide a time-frame for completion of this effort. We will continue to monitor FCC's progress and efforts in regard to this recommendation.
GAO-20-148, Oct 16, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-698, Sep 30, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Army has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Air Force has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Navy has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of Defense has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.
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-19-519, Sep 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6722
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Head Start
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HHS told us that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is developing a Fraud Risk Assessment template for all of its programs (including the Office of Head Start) and is on track to complete the initial Fraud Risk Assessment for its pilot program by June 30, 2020. Upon completion of the Fraud Risk Assessment for the ACF pilot program, ACF anticipates completing its initial Fraud Risk Assessment for OHS, by March 31, 2021. We will assess these actions once completed.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Head Start
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS stated that OHS regularly evaluates its effectiveness of its workflows to determine how to best adjust the system to support effective follow-up. HHS also stated that, for Fiscal Year 2020, OHS has updated its internal workflow timelines to increase responsiveness to identified findings and ensure grantee support. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in this area.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Head Start
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OHS told us that it is finalizing program guidance that will address when a child's slot should be considered vacant due to absenteeism and what a program should do fill it. OHS stated that it anticipates having a final paper published by summer, 2020. We will continue to monitor OHS's efforts in this area.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and Families: Office of Head Start
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, OHS told us that it is developing a toolkit of resources specifically designed to offer best practice tips for Early Head Start programs on how to track attendance and services to pregnant women. OHS is surveying the Head Start community to better determine what resources are already available and how programs in different regions and cities track services to pregnant women. OHS anticipates a rollout for the toolkit by summer, 2020.
GAO-19-609, Sep 11, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6881
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: USAID concurs with this recommendation, and indicates it will establish a performance-monitoring plan.
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Comments: USAID concurs with this recommendation. It affirmed is in the process of finalizing the strategic workforce plan that it will complete by September 30, 2019 and will submit the plan to Congress as directed. USAID stated it will also provide a framework to meet Congressionally-directed staffing levels across the Foreign Service and Civil Service.
GAO-19-600, Sep 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6881
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they would determine a reasonable time frame for completing the report and will coordinate with appropriate officials regarding a potential legislative proposal to Congress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they are taking steps to modify their Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System database to improve the collection of relevant data.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State indicated in their letter commenting on GAO-19-600 that they concurred with this recommendation. In their comments, State said they are developing a plan in coordination with USAID to fill existing vacancies, and are recruiting State and USAID employees to serve on details to fill existing staffing gaps.
GAO-19-624, Sep 4, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3406
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), we determined that this recommendation remains open. Treasury enhanced its procedures to include additional management reviews, particularly the Financial Reports and Advisory Division Director, for restatements, reclassifications, and adjustments to beginning net position. Although FRAD took steps to enhance its review procedures, the additional review did not prevent FRAD from including descriptions in the draft CFS that were not supported by entity financial statements or from excluding some information from the CFS notes. Further steps are needed to define procedures to ensure consistent and accurate treatment of restatements, reclassifications, and adjustments to beginning net position in the CFS. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), we determined that this recommendation remains open. Treasury and OMB (1) increased guidance to federal entities in the Treasury Financial Manual section 2-4700; (2) included an illustrative Contingent Loss Table in OMB Circular No. A-136 for agencies to use as guidance when reporting probable and reasonably possible losses; (3) provided guidance to agencies through monthly Central Reporting Team (CRT) meetings with the agencies' financial reporting staff and at the Government Financial Management Conference; (4) communicated regularly with Department of Justice officials regarding the preparation of the government-wide legal representation letter; and (5) increased the number of Treasury staff performing the legal letter analysis. However, we noted inconsistencies among the significant component entities' financial statement note disclosures, management schedules, and legal representation letters, and the legal contingency loss information reported in the CFS, as well as inconsistencies between entities' year-end management schedules/legal representation letters and the final government-wide legal representation letter. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
GAO-19-649, Aug 22, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9627
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: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
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-19-598, Aug 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors had been approved. However, as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of that approval.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors had been approved, and the training had been provided to presidential appointees and their staffs. However, as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of that approval or training.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, work on the report on the successes and failures of cross-functional teams was ongoing. We will continue to monitor DOD's process of developing its report; as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of the report being drafted, reviewed, or approved.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its comments on a subsequent report on the department's implementation of section 911, the department stated that funding for all Secretary of Defense-empowered cross functional teams, including the electromagnetic spectrum operations cross-functional team, was in place through fiscal year 2020, and that they were exploring options for dedicated funding for cross-functional teams in future years. As of April 2020, according to an OCMO official, these dedicated funding sources had not been established. DOD has not provided evidence of their funding as of September 2020.
GAO-19-606R, Aug 8, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation. NNSA officials said they submitted an assessment that includes information on suggested changes to the authority to the congressional committees in March 2020. We requested a copy of the assessment and will update the status of this recommendation after we receive and review it.
GAO-19-452, Jul 26, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. Specifically, DOD stated that the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) and the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) will coordinate with the Military Departments to promulgate regulations implementing GAO's recommendation, and collaborate to develop a new budgetary exhibit to coincide with the Fiscal Year 2022 budget estimate submission. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-521R, Jul 25, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Bureau of Justice Assistance agreed with this recommendation. The agency said it will develop and implement quality checks to confirm the accuracy of information reported in the 180-day reports related to PSOB 9/11 claims. We will consider closing this recommendation when this effort is completed.
GAO-19-547, Jul 17, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: Department of State officials stated in January 2020 that the department plans to address this recommendation by increasing the frequency and specificity of E-2 content through webinars, workshops, and cables. The Department of State also plans to develop subject matter experts on business and tax related documents that can provide consultative services on an as-needed basis. As of July 2020, Department of State officials said that they had not yet implemented these actions. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: Department of State officials stated in January 2020 that the department plans to address this recommendation by incorporating into policy a 5-year mandatory review of companies registered at any post using a company registration program. As of July 2020, Department of State officials said that they had not yet implemented these actions. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: Department of State officials stated in January 2020 that the department plans to communicate a reminder to posts abroad that there is a requirement to scan required E-2 documentation into each visa applicant's record. Department of State also plans to provide regular policy guidance to consular managers at posts that adjudicate E-2 visa applications. Further, Department of State officials stated in July 2020 that the department plans to incorporate the supplemental E-2 visa application (DS-156E) into the standard online application for all nonimmigrant visa applicants (DS-160). However, the officials stated that they experienced technical challenges in doing so, and was still working to resolve the challenges as of July 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation as the Department of State works to address the technical challenges.
GAO-19-428, Jul 3, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and, as of July 2020, had taken some initial steps to address the recommendation such as modifying the SVH contractor's contract to stop the practice of using 'recommendations' for low-level deficiencies and beginning the process of revising a VA policy to address this practice.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation and indicated in January 2020 that it had begun taking actions to address this recommendation such as developing a memo of clarification and planning the release of additional guidance for staff.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred in principle and, as of July 2020, had begun taking some steps to address this recommendation such as exploring options for presenting SVH quality measure data.
GAO-19-479, Jun 28, 2019
Phone: 2025122623
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) disagreed with our recommendation. In the agency's comment section of the GAO report, OMB staff stated that OMB did not believe the sufficiency or timeliness of control plans present material issues that warranted OMB action. While OMB acknowledged that almost all agency control plans were submitted after the statutory deadline, OMB staff stated that this delay in itself neither indicated the absence of controls nor the effectiveness of those controls. Further, OMB staff stated that it is agency management and not OMB that has responsibility for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. While agencies were responsible for submitting their internal control plans, federal law placed the responsibility of establishing the criteria for the internal control plans with OMB. Therefore, we believe that our recommendation is warranted. In January 2020, OMB informed us that there are no additional updates at this time regarding status, actions, or timelines to develop a strategy. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-19-406, Jun 27, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3665
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. The Department stated that it would seek fiscal year 2020 funds to contract a study on DOD contract financing policies and their effect on the defense industry. In September 2020, DOD stated that this action would be completed by December 31, 2021. The first phase of the report is estimated to be completed September 30, 2021. The department secured funds to complete the study and a contract was awarded on April 23, 2020.
GAO-19-541, Jun 26, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not enacted a reauthorization measure for surface transportation programs. The current authorization expires on September 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, DOT told us that, for the fiscal year 2020 INFRA awards, it plans to provide information in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and evaluation plan explaining under the circumstances under which additional information may be sought from applicants. DOT stated that it plans to complete these actions by March 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, DOT told us it will document the basis for seeking additional information from applicants and describe the procedures for doing so in the evaluation plan for the FY 2020 INFRA awards, which it expects to conclude by September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, DOT told us that, for the fiscal year 2020 INFRA awards, it plans to provide information in the Notice of Funding Opportunity that will more clearly state (1) that projects are advanced to the Secretary based on how they are evaluated against the selection criteria and (2) how evaluations against the selection criteria are used to determine which projects should receive awards. DOT stated that it plans to issue the Notice of Funding Opportunity by March 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.
GAO-19-347, Jun 25, 2019
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education generally agreed with this recommendation. Education stated that the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request includes a proposal that Congress pass legislation allowing the IRS to disclose tax return information directly to the department for the purpose of administering certain federal student financial aid programs. According to the agency, such legislation, if enacted, would allow borrowers to more easily certify their income on an annual basis to maintain enrollment in IDR plans, and allow the department to use the information to mitigate improper payments to borrowers as a result of misreported income data. Section 3 of the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act (FUTURE Act), enacted in December 2019, provided Education with statutory authority to access certain Internal Revenue Service data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things (Public Law 116-91). As of August 2020, Education had begun planning for the implementation of the legislation. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that use of this authority to verify eligibility for IDR plans could result in over $2 billion in savings for 2020-2029.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and from January to March 2020 initiated a pilot program with three of its loan servicers to conduct additional verification of income or family size information on IDR plan applications for a random sample of borrowers each month. When initiated, the pilot focused on IDR borrowers who self-certified that they had no income or who reported certain family sizes. According to Education, selected borrowers would be asked to provide documentation to their servicers to support the income or family size reported on their IDR application. In the event errors were identified, servicers would work with the borrowers to update their applications. If these reviews resulted in changes to a borrower's monthly payment amount, the borrower would be expected to begin paying the new amount within the next 60 days. According to Education, as of the end of March 2020 when the pilot was put on hold, participating servicers selected 48,855 borrowers for verification. The verification pilot was put on hold as it implemented student loan relief for borrowers under the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic (Public Law 116-136). Specifically, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which suspended student loan payments due, interest accrual, and involuntary collections for Direct and Federal Family Education Loans held by Education through September 30, 2020. According to Education, the Department suspended all IDR recertifications during this period. On August 8, 2020, the President issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Education to extend this relief to borrowers through December 31, 2020. Education reported that it will weigh options for resuming the pilot against other critical priorities and available resources, noting that its long-term strategy is to fully implement the authorities granted under the FUTURE Act, which provides Education with statutory authority to access certain Internal Revenue Service data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things (Public Law 116-91). GAO will continue to monitor Education's actions in this area, and will close the recommendation when Education provides documentation that it has implemented data analytic practices and follow-up procedures to review and verify that borrowers reporting zero income on IDR applications do not have sources of taxable income at the time of their application.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and from January to March 2020 established a pilot program with three of its loan servicers to conduct additional verification of income or family size information on IDR plan applications for a random sample of borrowers each month. When initiated, the pilot focused on IDR borrowers who self-certified that they had no income or who reported certain family sizes. According to Education, selected borrowers would be asked to provide documentation to their servicers to support the income or family size reported on their IDR application. Education noted that under the pilot, loan servicers were required to request additional information from borrowers to verify family sizes greater than five; specifically, a statement listing each family member residing with the borrower and for whom the borrower pays at least 51 percent of the support. In the event errors were identified, servicers would work with the borrowers to update their applications. If these reviews resulted in changes to a borrower's monthly payment amount, the borrower would be expected to begin paying the new amount within the next 60 days. According to Education, as of the end of March 2020 when the pilot was put on hold, participating servicers selected 48,855 borrowers for verification. The verification pilot was put on hold as Education implemented student loan relief for borrowers under the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic (Public Law 116-136). Specifically, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which suspended student loan payments due, interest accrual, and involuntary collections for Direct and Federal Family Education Loans held by Education through September 30, 2020. According to Education, the Department suspended all IDR recertifications during this period. On August 8, 2020, the President issued a presidential memorandum directing the Secretary of Education to extend this relief to borrowers through December 31, 2020. Education reported that it will weigh options for resuming the pilot against other critical priorities and available resources, noting that its long-term strategy is to fully implement the authorities granted under the FUTURE Act, which provides Education with statutory authority to access certain Internal Revenue Service data for the purpose of determining eligibility for IDR plans, among other things (Public Law 116-91). GAO will continue to monitor Education's actions in this area, and will close the recommendation when Education provides documentation that it has implemented data analytic practices and follow-up procedures to review and verify family size entries in IDR borrower applications.
GAO-19-440, Jun 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation, but noted that it had already developed and implemented effective systems for obtaining Veterans' input in facility planning. However, we found that the information VA collects through these efforts may be limited based on our review of VA's surveys, including VSignals and the Survey of Enrollees, as well as our discussions with several Veterans Service Organizations. For example, we found that VA's efforts were limited because they either focused on overall veteran expectations without a means of assessing how they differed by demographics, or they focused on veteran satisfaction with their past experiences. Moreover, satisfaction with past experiences, as operationalized by VA for the surveys we reviewed, measured how someone is with what they received--while "expectations," as defined by VA, would measure or gain insight into what it is that someone would want, and which may or may not be what they are receiving. Thus, while satisfaction, as operationalized by VA, can be an indicator of an expectation, as defined by VA, the two are not synonymous. Although VA considers this recommendation closed, we are working with them to identify ways that expectations, as VA has defined the term, can be measured.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with the recommendation and indicated that it would instruct users on what data to use in planning and updates, which would help ensure veterans' input is incorporated where appropriate. As of its fiscal year 2021 budget justification, VA still had not provided this guidance to the VAMCs, but noted that it would provide it in scheduled facility planning calls that were expected to start in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and noted that it would clarify prior guidance on the foundational health services for VAMCs, which it expected to complete in June 2019. In November 2019, VA told us that it had reviewed this prior guidance from August 2017 that had defined foundational services, and has rescinded it. However, we are working with VA to determine if this decision to rescind the prior guidance was distributed to VAMCs.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with this recommendation and indicated that it would update its training instructions to facility planners by adding an explanation of how SCIP space estimates are derived. In addition, VA noted that it would survey facility planners about their concerns with the SCIP space estimates, and use these results to either address the concerns or make improvements to SCIP. As of November 2019, VA had not completed the training or the survey, but noted that they are in the process of updating training materials for the FY22 SCIP planning process--which was targeted to start 2019. We will work with VA to obtain relevant documentation of these efforts.
GAO-19-433, Jun 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS said CMS is developing the ability to review survey trends related to alleged perpetrator and alleged abuse types and aims to implement this recommendation by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS said CMS will list the elements that all nursing homes should report to state agencies and aims to implement this recommendation by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS said CMS will require state survey agencies to immediately refer complaints upon receipt and surveys to law enforcement (and, when applicable, to Medicaid Fraud Control Units) if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime against a resident has occurred and aims to implement this requirement by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS said CMS will revise guidance to ensure state survey agencies will investigate and track incidents of abuse and neglect and report substantiated findings to local law enforcement. CMS aims to implement this recommendation by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS said CMS will provide clarification to the state survey agencies regarding the definition of substantiated and when cases need to be referred to law enforcement. CMS aims to implement this recommendation by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, HHS said it will provide guidance to state agencies and nursing homes on identifying and reporting potential abuse and neglect of residents and will develop a list of standardized elements that should be included when reporting an abuse allegation to law enforcement. HHS aims to implement this recommendation by July 2020.
GAO-19-495, Jun 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation and plans to create an internal procedure manual which will document the Office of Exemption Determinations' process for managing IRA prohibited transaction exemption applications. When we confirm what actions DOL has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation and plans to periodically discuss all IRA exemption cases with IRS and did not elaborate on the formal means for this information sharing. IRS said that it has met with DOL to formalize collaboration on exemptions from prohibited transaction treatment in IRAs. DOL agreed to contact IRS within 25 days of DOL receiving an IRA prohibited transaction exemption application to determine if there are any Internal Revenue Code issues. To avoid any disclosure concerns, DOL will not identify the applicant at that time. This new process will be reflected in DOL's forthcoming internal procedure manual for the prohibited transaction exemption process.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and said it has met with DOL to formalize collaboration on exemptions from prohibited transaction treatment in IRAs. DOL agreed to contact IRS within 25 days of DOL receiving an IRA prohibited transaction exemption application to determine if there are any Internal Revenue Code issues. To avoid any disclosure concerns, DOL will not identify the applicant at that time. This new process will be reflected in DOL's forthcoming internal procedure manual for the prohibited transaction exemption process.
GAO-19-405, Jun 3, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA is taking steps to implement this recommendation. GSA staff summarized the agency's approach to addressing the recommendation in a January 2020 meeting. GAO agreed to check progress with GSA in the summer of 2020.
GAO-19-346, May 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, BLM reported it had awarded a contract to develop a new data system that will allow for centralized data collection on acquisition method and ownership interest. In addition, the agency issued updated guidance and procedures related to data entry to help ensure complete and accurate recording, which will improve BLM's ability to track acquisition method and interest acquired in the interim.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, BLM reported it was planning to develop specific guidance to ensure land acquisition data is entered correctly into its new data system.
GAO-19-410, May 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by December 31, 2021.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by April 30, 2021.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by December 31, 2022.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by June 30, 2021.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by November 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by November 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, ONRR officials stated they were on track towards implementing the recommendation by March 31, 2021.
GAO-19-185, May 15, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3406
including 5 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Fiscal Service concurred with the results of our audit. As of July 2020, Fiscal Service developed a remediation plan and efforts are underway to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-19-352, May 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: FDIC agreed that a structure should be enhanced to allow staff to further categories MRBAs at the point of entry into the system. As of March 2020, no action has been taken on this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor for any updates to FDIC procedures.
GAO-19-412R, May 9, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9377
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. During fiscal year 2019, IRS documented the key management decisions in the design and use of the estimation process. This step should reduce the risk that IRS may perform sampling procedures inconsistent with management intent or plans. Continued management commitment and sustained efforts are necessary to build on the progress made to date and to fully address IRS's remaining unresolved issues concerning the management and reporting of unpaid assessments. We will assess IRS's progress in addressing these issues during our audit of IRS's fiscal year 2020 financial statements.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that Facilities Management and Security Services is in the process of developing and documenting a formal, comprehensive strategy. According to IRS officials, this strategy will include different overarching goals, such as improving workforce effectiveness, ensuring appropriate monitoring functions and employee accountability, and improving coordination and communication of policies and procedures. IRS plans to complete the formal, comprehensive strategy during fiscal year 2020 and finalize the implementation of this strategy by March 2021.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. During fiscal year 2019, IRS used a questionnaire survey and obtained feedback from security section chiefs and physical security specialists to determine the reasons staff did not consistently comply with IRS's existing requirement to maintain an emergency contact list at all IRS facilities. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Facilities Management and Security Services will establish a process to better enforce compliance with the requirement based on the results of the feedback obtained.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Facilities Management and Security Services will (1) update the Internal Revenue Manual to reflect the requirement to use the Alarm Maintenance and Testing Certification Report to document alarm testing results, including any malfunctioning alarms and related corrective actions taken, as appropriate;, and (2) review the Alarm Maintenance and Testing Certification Report Form and incorporate any additional instructions and fields to document the specific alarms tested, the testing results, and related corrective actions taken, as appropriate.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Facilities Management and Security Services will develop, document, and implement policies or procedures, or both, to provide reasonable assurance of the accuracy and physical security of the video surveillance systems at all IRS facilities by including periodic checks and adjustments, as needed, as part of the annual service and maintenance of security equipment.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Information Technology and the Criminal Investigation organizations will update and implement their policies or procedures, or both, to clarify (1) who is responsible for conducting the annual review of the visitor access logs, (2) the date by which the review is to be conducted, and (3) how the review should be documented.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Field Collection organization determined that the reasons the policies and procedures were not always followed were either a lack of understanding of the requirements or a lack of consistency in adhering to them. In order to address this, in October 2019, Field Collection distributed a memorandum to its area directors, territory managers, and group managers, reminding them of the required remittance processing procedures, emphasizing the importance of following the procedures, and requesting that they distribute the information in the memorandum within their organization. IRS officials stated that the memorandum will help assure that SB/SE Field Collection units comply with the applicable policies and procedures. Since this memorandum was issued after the end of our fiscal year 2019 audit, we will review the implementation of this action during our fiscal year 2020 audit. Further, IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the SB/SE Examination organization will identify the reason that IRS's policies and procedures for transmittal forms were not followed, and based on this, it will add guidance to the applicable Internal Revenue Manual sections to clarify and supplement the service-wide guidance for the appropriate control, monitoring, and review of the forms used to transmit packages containing personally identifiable information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. During fiscal year 2019, the Information Technology (IT) organization updated IRS's Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) security policy contained in the Internal Revenue Manual to ensure that the IDRS account administration process complies with IRS's personnel security policy regarding background investigation completion dates. In addition, IRS officials stated that by November 2020, the IT organization will update the Unit Security Representative (USR) designation form, as well as policies and procedures, to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of second-level managers and IDRS security account administrators for validating the information on USR designation forms, including how the information should be validated.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During fiscal year 2019, the Information Technology organization updated its standard operating procedures to clearly specify the tax refund data elements that the Processing Validation Section Certifying Officers are required to verify before certifying the tax refunds in the Secure Payment System. Since IRS completed this action after we had already performed our fiscal year 2019 testing related to the certification of tax refunds, we will evaluate IRS's actions to address this recommendation during our fiscal year 2020 audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Wage & Investment organization will establish and implement a review process to provide reasonable assurance that the Refund Schedule Numbers on manual refund forms are transcribed accurately into the Integrated Submission and Remittance Processing system.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS officials stated that the Wage and Investment organization agrees that developing and implementing a Unified Work Request for programming changes is needed to systemically validate the refund schedule numbers input into the Integrated Submission and Remittance Processing system; however, IRS officials indicated that the organization is unable to commit to implementing a corrective action because of budgetary constraints. As a result, IRS will place this recommendation on hold until funds are available.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that by April 2020, IRS will update and implement policies or procedures, or both, requiring that reviewers follow up with tax examiners to verify that the errors tax examiners made in working a case related to suspicious or questionable tax returns are corrected.
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-19-341, Apr 29, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4851
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would review its Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) requirements and possibly revise them. In late 2019, the F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) developed an initiative to clearly identify what, if any, revisions DOD should make to the ORD. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) RMIP guidance. In late 2019, DOD reported that a revised RMIP will be delivered to program leadership for approval. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its RMIP guidance. In late 2019, DOD reported that a revised RMIP will be delivered to program leadership for approval. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would plan for R&M funding going forward. In Sept. 2019, the F-35 Program Office reported that it was coordinating with the services to increase its Reliability & Maintainability investment. In Nov. 2019, the F-35 Program Office reported that it would allocate significant additional funding for RMIP for calendar year 2020. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.
GAO-19-359, Apr 19, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: We will provide updated information when we confirm what steps Congress has taken related to this matter.
GAO-19-315, Apr 17, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In response to this recommendation, HHS stated that existing regulations permit CMS at its discretion to direct an additional public comment period when states make a modification to an application that substantially changes the design. In July 2020, CMS officials said the agency would continue to exercise its regulatory discretion as needed and planned no further action in response to this recommendation. In light of past CMS decisions to not require states to first seek public comment before submitting major changes to their demonstration applications, we maintain that a policy is needed defining when changes are considered major and should prompt a new review of the application against transparency requirements. We will continue to monitor CMS's actions in this area.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS stated that it plans to implement a policy applying state public input processes and application criteria to amendments proposing significant or substantial changes in the same manner as for new demonstrations. In July 2020, CMS stated the agency plans to develop criteria for determining whether an amendment application proposes a substantial change to an existing demonstration and to include this in guidance by early 2021. We will continue to monitor CMS's actions in this area and will close this recommendation once this policy guidance is issued.
GAO-19-233, Apr 8, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2775
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps has in process a Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative that it expects to provide visibility and traceability throughout the budget cycle, to include enabling the tracking of unit-level training funds throughout the budget cycle. DOD expects to complete implementation by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway through its Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative. The initiative is expected to result in the addition of an "Assessment" phase to the PPBE process, which will be known as "PPBEA." The new phase is expected to include a system that incorporates campaign planning against traceability of funding, among other factors, and will be documented in a new Marine Corps Order to replace existing PPBE guidance. The Marine Corps expects to complete this process by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps' Programs and Resources Department is supporting the transition of the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) from a stand-alone database to a web-enabled platform within the Marine Corps Training Information Management System (MCTIMS) program. The Marine Corps expects this platform to provide the ability to track ground unit-level training costs as they pertain to readiness goals and provide data to more effectively assess readiness investments for subsequent budget cycles. The Marine Corps expects the platform to attain initial operational capability for data input and data management by the end of fiscal year 2020, and to support analytics reporting and predictive resourcing functions by the end of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.
GAO-19-265, Apr 4, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6888
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE said the scientific integrity official will be responsible for leading and coordinating with other elements of the Department, in the development of measures to educate and communicate DOE's scientific integrity policies to staff.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE said that it was still in the process of identifying an individual to serve as a scientific integrity official.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE stated that the Department's scientific integrity official will have the responsibility to lead and coordinate with other elements of the Department in developing procedures to monitor and evaluate the implementation of DOE's scientific integrity policy, including mechanisms to remediate identified deficiencies and make improvements where necessary.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Department of Transportation provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, officials said that DOT was still working on this action. According to officials, the department will implement several mechanisms to address the recommendation, including conducting annual reviews of the scientific integrity policy and making the policy available to all relevant employees. DOT estimated it would complete these actions by the end of March 2021.
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Status: Open
Comments: In Commerce's written comments, NIST had stated that, beginning in fiscal year 2019, the agency would review implementation of its policy at least annually and make recommendations to the Director of NIST as to whether any improvements were needed. In a September 2020 update, NIST provided a memorandum reporting that in fiscal year 2019 the Scientific Integrity Officer and General Counsel had discussed an allegation related to scientific integrity, and that it was determined that programmatic factors, not a lapse in scientific integrity, had occurred. According to NIST, it monitors the effectiveness of the implementation of its documented scientific integrity policy, order, and procedure by means of informal feedback from NIST researchers and supervisors, as documented in the memorandum.
Agency: Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In Commerce's written comments, NOAA stated that it will identify additional metrics for monitoring and evaluating its policy. As of October 2020, we have requested an update from the agency but have not yet received information to evaluate implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Department of the Interior provided an update on this recommendation. In that update, officials stated that the expected completion date is the end of November 2022.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE stated that the department's scientific integrity official will be responsible for leading and coordinating with other elements of the Department in developing procedures for identifying and addressing alleged violations of DOE's scientific integrity policy.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NASA officials stated that the agency is undergoing additional internal and external reviews-with NASA officials working through the National Science and Technology Council's Joint Committee on Research Environments, which supports scientific security, rigor, and integrity-and that completion of the implementation of the recommendation is due October 31, 2020.
GAO-19-193, Mar 29, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS partially agreed with recommendation. IRS said it would use consistent terms in developing measures that link to its PDC program objectives, but did not agree that program objectives are necessarily framed in terms of program risks. In December 2019, IRS provided new objectives linked with proposed measures to assess collection agencies. In February 2020, IRS said it intends to award new contracts in 2021 that will include performance measures linked to program objectives. To fully address GAO's recommendation, IRS also needs to identify targets for measures linked to program objectives.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS disagreed with the recommendation. In October 2019 IRS said that including TIGTA costs in reporting program costs would be inconsistent with legislative requirements that define program costs as IRS's costs and with IRS cost-accounting practices. However, we maintain that the FAST Act set minimum reporting requirements to which IRS can add more information. Also, the existing cost accounting standards and practices to which IRS refers govern IRS's accounting for and reporting of costs incurred by IRS, not to fuller reporting of the PDC program's costs to the federal government. We will continue to pursue this recommendation and update its status in response to any changes.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with our recommendation and in October 2019 said it plans to report PDC revenue amounts going to the Treasury and to IRS's retained funds by February 2020. As of March 2020, we had not received documentation from IRS to demonstrate it had done so.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS disagreed with the recommendation and said such analysis is unnecessary due to a legal requirement to assign all such cases to collection agencies and because there is very little cost in doing so. Our report noted that IRS has the authority and responsibility for efficient program operations to not assign uncollectible debt cases. In February 2020, IRS said that the assignment and recall of cases add nothing to the cost. We disagree, noting that IRS has not supported this assertion. IRS incurred some portion of its PDC costs from assigning and recalling cases that collected no revenue. Even if these costs are minor, they would be greater than the amount collected. We maintain the importance of this recommendation because IRS has incurred tens of millions of dollars in costs with little or no revenue collected for most of the PDC cases that IRS has closed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed and noted that it already had the recommended analyses built into the PDC case identification process. IRS also provided documentation to GAO in December 2019 and its comments in February 2020 repeated its view that its process already identified other inactive cases that have not been assigned to PDC. IRS's documentation during the review and provided in December did not show how IRS analyzes its debt inventory and PDC results to identify inactive cases that are not being assigned to PDC but may be worth pursuing.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. We will update the status after completing review of documentation IRS provided in December 2019, on actions taken to implement the recommendation. IRS actions included a risk register with related information on the analyses and response to the listed risks.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. We will update the status after completing review of documentation IRS provided in December 2019, on actions taken to implement the recommendation. IRS actions included a risk register with related information on the analyses and response to the listed risks.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. We will update the status after completing review of documentation IRS provided in December 2019, on actions taken to implement the recommendation. IRS actions included a risk register with related information on the analyses and response to the listed risks.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. We will update the status after completing review of documentation IRS provided in December 2019 on actions taken to implement the recommendation, such as outreach to FTC on its system to record the complaints.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. We will update the status after completing review of documentation IRS provided in December 2019 on actions taken to implement the recommendation, such as a system to record feedback received.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and said that by June 2020, it would conduct a fraud risk assessment based on the Fraud Reduction and Data Analytics Act of 2015 and OMB guidance. We will update the status when we complete review of any documentation IRS provides on actions taken to implement the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. We will update the status after completing review of documentation IRS provided in December 2019 on actions taken to implement the recommendation.
GAO-19-277, Mar 27, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7144
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) noted that it had clarified and amended several Medicare documentation requirements as part of an agency initiative to assess such requirements. CMS further stated that Medicaid documentation requirements are generally established at the state level, and that the agency has taken steps to identify best practices for documentation requirements and share them with states. However, we believe that CMS still needs to take steps to assess documentation requirements in both programs to better understand how the variation in the programs' requirements affects estimated improper payment rates. Without an assessment of how the programs' documentation requirements affect estimates of improper payments, CMS may not have the information it needs to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid documentation requirements are effective at demonstrating compliance and appropriately address program risks.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not concur with this recommendation. As of September 2020, HHS has stated that it does not plan to implement this recommendation because the agency believes the resource requirement is not justified based on the potential improper payment findings. HHS further stated that the agency already uses a variety of sources to identify and take corrective actions to address underlying causes of improper Medicaid payments. However, we found that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and state Medicaid agencies are expending time and resources developing and implementing corrective actions that may not be representative of the underlying causes of improper payments in their states. Without robust information to effectively identify the underlying causes of improper payments, CMS and state Medicaid agencies may not develop corrective actions that effectively address Medicaid program risks.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) updated Medicaid Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program guidance to strongly encourage state Medicaid agencies to proactively review providers selected for the state's PERM review; determine whether any of the selected providers are subjects of current or impending fraud investigations; and assess whether a PERM review could compromise the fraud investigation. CMS included this clarification in updated contractor guidance and in information provided to state Medicaid agencies. CMS plans to include the updated guidance in the fiscal year 2019 PERM program manual, which CMS anticipates completing by the end of 2019. Such revisions to the PERM manual will further codify and encourage state efforts to prevent PERM reviews from potentially compromising ongoing fraud investigations. As of September 2020, CMS has not informed us of any additional actions taken to implement this recommendation, including of any revisions to the PERM manual; we will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) noted that the agency updated Medicaid Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) guidance regarding state Medicaid agencies' corrective action plans for providers under fraud investigation. If a state Medicaid agency opts to remove a provider from the state's PERM review due to a fraud investigation, claims associated with the provider are determined to be improper, due to no documentation. Under the updated guidance, states are no longer required to develop a corrective action plan for such claims, since the state is already addressing the issue through a fraud investigation. CMS included this updated guidance in the fiscal year 2017 PERM corrective action plan template, and plans to include the updated guidance in the fiscal year 2019 PERM program manual, which CMS anticipates completing by the end of 2019. Such revisions to the PERM manual will remove a disincentive for state Medicaid agencies to notify the PERM contractor of providers under fraud investigation. As of September 2020, CMS has not informed us of any additional actions taken to implement this recommendation, including of any revisions to the PERM manual; we will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-19-176, Mar 26, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. As of February 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reported it has hired or made final offers to new members of its Workforce Planning branch that will help implement the Workforce Planning initiative. According to IRS, the agency is updating its workforce planning policy, and will establish a workforce plan including an enterprise strategy and initiate related workforce analysis by December 2020. By December 2021, IRS expects to implement the workforce plan and a process to monitor and evaluate the results of the workforce plan. Full implementation of a workforce plan that provides a comprehensive inventory of its current workforce will allow IRS to develop competency and staffing requirements to conduct agency-wide activities associated with identifying and addressing skills gaps.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: Treasury agreed with the recommendation. Treasury stated that it has taken actions to ensure that IRS and all Treasury bureaus have a clear understanding of when the ITM workforce planning module will be available and how it will be used. Treasury stated that they conducted a Workforce Planning offsite in May 2019 to (1) ensure a common understanding of the workforce planning process as it relates to ITM; 2) document the process in preparation of utilizing ITM; and 3) agree on how the agency will accomplish workforce planning in ITM. According to Treasury, goals 1 and 2 were achieved during the offsite and the workforce planning community continues to work on the third goal. Treasury expects to complete the discussion on how to accomplish workforce planning in ITM by the end of calendar year 2019. Treasury's Offices of the Chief Human Capital Officer and the Chief Information Officer are responsible for ensuring effective communication and training are completed as each ITM module is implemented. We will continue to monitor Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agrees with this recommendation. In its recommendation status letter to us, IRS wrote that they will include workforce planning in their bi-monthly HRstat information submissions to Treasury, and will have an approved implementation schedule for the workforce planning initiative by December 2019. IRS identified the Human Capital Officer as the responsible official for addressing this recommendation. We will continue to monitor IRS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agrees with this recommendation. In its recommendation status letter to us, IRS provided a timetable for implementation. By January 2021, IRS will initiate use of Integrated Talent Management's (ITM) capability to enable workforce planning and analytics. They are still working through requirements and the implementation plan for using this system. By December 2021, IRS will report the results of efforts to close skills gaps among revenue agents, including lessons learned on an annual basis over the next three fiscal years. IRS identified the Human Capital Officer and Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement as the officials responsible for addressing this recommendation. In our 2019 Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation report, we determined implementing this recommendation is needed to address IRS's fragmented human capital activities to improve its strategic workforce planning so it can better meet challenges to achieving its mission. We will continue to monitor IRS's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. As of February 2020, IRS reported that it expects to fully implement this action by June 15, 2020. IRS reported that full implementation of related actions has been delayed due to limited resources. To date, the IRS Human Capital Officer has (1) identified mission critical occupations (MCOs), (2) collaborated with the Employment, Talent and Security (ETS) Division to develop an implementation schedule for the assessments, (3) obtained the Worklife Benefits and Performance Division and ETS Division Directors' approval of the implementation schedule, and (4) published and distributed the schedule. Going forward, the IRS Human Capital Office will coordinate with the Chief Financial Office and the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement in developing a work plan or other mechanism that prioritizes and schedules skills assessments for mission critical occupations. IRS will also validate its list of 22 positions established in coordination with Treasury. A work plan for addressing MCOs and skills gaps could help IRS identify and close skills gaps on a timely basis. Without such a plan, IRS risks continuing to scale back on mission-critical activities, adding to the existing fragmentation of its human capital planning efforts.
GAO-19-254, Mar 21, 2019
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.
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.
GAO-19-210, Mar 21, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary: Office of the Deputy Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, DHS reported that S&T was revising the related DHS Directive to improve R&D project data collection and that detailed procedures for the data collection would be described in an associated guidance document. DHS further reported that S&T would be coordinating with the Undersecretary for Management, and meeting with DHS components regarding the data collection efforts. We will continue to monitor DHS's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary: Office of the Deputy Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, S&T reported preparing Budget Justification documents, which will include key milestones for R&D projects, and indicated that the documents will be reviewed by the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer. We will continue to monitor DHS's efforts related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary: Office of the Deputy Secretary
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, DHS stated that a new DHS Directive and Instruction is being developed related to R&D customer and program feedback. This recommendation remains open, and we will continue to monitor DHS's efforts to address it.
GAO-19-224, Mar 19, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and stated that, as the report details, the United States has achieved significant successes increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of UN peacekeeping operations. According to State officials, the five peacekeeping principles provide a framework for honest, strategic reviews of peacekeeping operations in order to continue working to ensure that the UN is performing at its highest level in-country, and that the United States and United States taxpayers are receiving the best value for our financial contributions. U.S. leadership and effective collaboration within the UN Security Council has led to smart reductions of over $800 million in the UN peacekeeping budget since July 2016. In response to analysis of conditions on the ground, State has worked with the UN to reconfigure missions in Haiti and Darfur, bolstered the mission in the Central African Republic, made the mission in Lebanon more relevant to the challenges to peace presented by Hizballah, closed the mission in Cote d'Ivoire, and more. The United States will continue to engage in close interagency cooperation, as well as strong advocacy within the UN Security Council to continue improving UN peacekeeping. GAO will continue to monitor State's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, noting that the report correctly states that there is a need for better financial information related to UN peacekeeping operations. While the UN Secretariat provides a large volume of financial information to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, that information does not correlate well with changes that the Security Council makes to specific peacekeeping mandates. Instead, the financial information represents the totality of resources that the UN Secretariat estimates needing to accomplish a given peacekeeping mission's overall mandate. Achieving the desired level of detail will require changes to UN financial management practices and reporting to the Fifth Committee. The United States will work to advance these changes, which may require adoption through a resolution by the UN General Assembly. In the meantime and in the absence of that structural change, the United States will continue to closely scrutinize all proposed UN peacekeeping budgets to ensure to the extent possible that approved resource levels are realistic and afford missions the ability to implement their mandates, based in part on historical forecasting and expenditure patterns. With the implementation of the UN reform agenda and the expected and related UN cultural shift to one that is results based in 2019 and beyond, the United States will continue to advocate for greater transparency and accountability in the use of peacekeeping resources. GAO will continue to monitor State's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, noting that the United States has been a leader on the UN Security Council in order to create a "culture of performance" in UN peacekeeping. The United States drafted and achieved Security Council approval of resolution 2436 in September 2018, the first-ever resolution focused on improving the performance of UN peacekeeping, and implementing a system of accountability. This resolution calls for a timely and transparent reporting process for performance failures, real accountability measures for when these failures occur, and the application of objective criteria - data, not politics - to match the right police and troops with the right peacekeeping roles. The United States will continue to work with the UN Secretary-General, the Security Council, General Assembly, UN Secretariat, as well as troop- and police-contributing countries in order to ensure effective implementation of resolution 2436 going forward. GAO will continue to monitor State's actions related to this recommendation and update information accordingly.
GAO-19-297, Mar 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, ICE officials indicated that they were in the process of addressing GAO's recommendation and would submit an update including supporting documentation when available. 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 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, ICE officials indicated that they were in the process of addressing GAO's recommendation and would submit an update including supporting documentation when available. 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 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, ICE officials indicated that they were in the process of addressing GAO's recommendation and would submit an update including supporting documentation when available. 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 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, ICE officials indicated that they were in the process of addressing GAO's recommendation and would submit an update including supporting documentation when available. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-168, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, SBA analyzed FPDS-NG data to review the use of ineligible NAICS codes in the WOSB program. SBA officials also noted that they plan to conduct these reviews on an ongoing basis. As part of their May 2019 analysis, SBA identified federal agencies that had used ineligible NAICS codes. As of October 2019, SBA officials said that they were taking steps, including drafting presentation materials, to provide training on NAICS codes to agencies and planned to present quarterly at the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council FY 2020 meetings. SBA officials also noted that they had also provided training on NAICS codes as part of its FY 2019 performance reviews of procurement centers.
GAO-19-282, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In responding to the report, DOL stated that it concurs with the recommendation. DOL's subagency, OSHA, provided written comments and stated that it generally agreed with GAO's recommendation. On March 3, 2020, DOL staff said the agency will provide an update to its response to this recommendation, along with responses to open recommendations from other GAO reports, in several months.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In a subsequent response to the report, Education stated that it concurred with GAO's recommendation and is considering enhancing its current approach to overseeing compliance with the Stevens Amendment through post-award monitoring activities. On March 9, 2020, an Education Department Official stated that the planned date that work is due to be completed by the applicable program office is 9/30/2020. According to the official, the work will promote consistency across applicable grant programs and enhance their monitoring efforts. The official further stated that Education will develop general monitoring guidance to further check on compliance with the Stevens Amendment for implementation across Education's grantmaking Principal Offices. As a part of monitoring, program offices will be expected to review the Stevens Amendment statutory requirements with grantees and plans to reiterate that grantees are required to disclose for their grant project the percent of the costs financed with federal funds, the federal dollar amount, and the percentage and dollar amount financed by nongovernmental funds when issuing statements, press releases, bid solicitations, and other documents describing their grant project. Education also plans to remind grantees that they must document how the dollar amounts and percentages were calculated in the disclosures and maintain this documentation with their grant file. We will update the action taken in response to this recommendation when further action is confirmed.
GAO-19-249, Mar 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, no bills have been introduced related to this matter. When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SBA officials provided documentation, including internal operating procedures for certifying and tracking initial ethics training, to support that they have taken initial steps to address our recommendation. In a letter dated September 13, 2019, SBA's Designated Agency Ethics Official stated that, since February 2019, SBA has used those procedures to document the provision of initial ethics training to political appointees. In that letter, SBA stated that it planned to provide additional documentation to GAO to support this action. When we receive this documentation, we will assess the implementation of SBA;s new procedures to confirm that, in operation, these procedures meet the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of reorganizing the Department's ethics program, including working with the Chief Human Capital Officer to develop and implement strategic workforce planning. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated September 10, 2019, Interior's Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget stated that Interior concurred with this recommendation and is in the process of developing ethics program policies and procedures. Interior expects to complete this action by December 31, 2021. Once finalized, Interior plans to make ethics program policies and procedures easily accessible to the program staff. When we can confirm what actions Interior has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-81, Mar 13, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. As of July 2020, IRS has taken steps to develop and implement an integrated case inventory and management system capable of recording and tracking taxpayer contacts. It expects this system to be deployed by October 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. As of July 2020, IRS has taken steps to develop and implement an integrated case inventory and management system capable of tracking actual time worked on cases. It expects this system to be deployed by October 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. As of July 2020, IRS plans to review its current practices in order to ensure they are in line with the GAO's recommendation with respect to MAP cases, as well as APA cases. IRS has taken steps to develop and implement an integrated case inventory and management system that it expects to deploy by October 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. As of July 2020, IRS has taken steps to develop and implement an integrated case inventory and time management system for APMA's MAP (and other) cases that it believes will help it quickly identify when case and inventory data do not meet quality standards. The new system is expected to be deployed by October 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. As of July 2020, IRS has taken steps to record these amounts in the inventory management system that is expected to be deployed by October 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. As of July 2020, IRS is exploring ways to examine correlations between case management and administrative characteristics as part of ongoing, routine measurement of stages of the MAP.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with GAO's recommendation. APMA already tracks issue classification data for completed APA cases for its annual report to Congress on the APA program, and IRS agrees that a similar system can and should be pursued for MAP cases. Implementing an integrated inventory management system capable of tracking these data across both MAP and APA cases would be especially informative and helpful for APMA management. As of July 2020, the IRS has taken steps to develop and implement such a system. It is expected to be deployed by October 2020..
GAO-19-362, Mar 6, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-9971
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Army is performing a validation pilot for its Cyberspace Operations Planners Course. After that validation pilot is complete, the Army will establish a time frame for validating its other courses.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Air Force is coordinating with U.S. Cyber Command to obtain a final determination on the validated knowledge, skills, and abilities; proficiency standards, and skills for the various work roles supported by this training. The Air Force is responsible for developing curriculum for seven of the Cyber Mission Force workroles. DOD estimates that it will take 2 to 4 years to complete validation for all of the courses supporting these workroles.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: 3. DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Army's implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon U.S. Cyber Command establishing master training task lists for phases 2 and 3 of the training. The Army estimates it will complete all required actions to validate phase 2 of its Cyber Mission Force training requirements by June 2020, phase 3 by October 2020, and phase 4 by January 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Navy plans to identify the specific training requirements for phase 3 Cyber Mission Force training by October 31, 2020. Additionally, the Navy reported that it published a policy memorandum establishing a 24-month continuous training and certification cycle for its Cyber Mission Force Teams to address its phase 4 training requirements.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Air Force's phase 2 training plan is contingent upon the completion of U.S. Cyber Command validating the tasks, knowledge, skills, abilities, and proficiency levels that establish the training baseline. Those products are still in coordination and are not finalized. The Air Force did not provide timeframes by which it would be able to develop training plans for its phase 2, 3, and 4 training requirements.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Marine Corps is still developing its response to comprehensively assess and identify Cyber Mission Force training requirements for phases two , three, and four.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, U.S. Cyber Command established procedures for assessing teams participating in Joint Exercise Program collective training events. These procedures include the use of highly skilled and independent assessors from deployable training teams and other units to conduct standard assessments using U.S. Cyber Command criteria. DOD reports that the command has captured lessons learned from these procedures and will promulgate a command-wide instruction to further standardize assessments across the force and guide the development of automated assessments conducted with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment. DOD further reports that the procedures described above were first used in the CYBERFLAG 19-1 exercise in June 2019. We are in the process of obtaining documentation from that exercise to verify these procedures.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, U.S. Cyber Command will complete this task in September 2020. DOD reports that U.S. Cyber Command has established and made individual training standards available through the Joint Cyber Training and Certification Standards to all services prior to the training transition in October 2018. In October 2019, DOD approved a new organizational structure and new Mission Essential Tasks for Cyber Protection Teams. The training standards were updated and provided to the services, who are using them to validate and develop Joint Curriculum. DOD is currently reviewing a U.S. Cyber Command proposal for the organization and mission essential tasks for Cyber Mission Teams and Cyber Support Teams. Pending DOD approval, U.S. Cyber Command will update and publish revisions to the individual training standards.
GAO-19-7, Feb 14, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, BLM's Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management wrote a letter to GAO stating that the bureau agreed that there are additional opportunities to improve the Inspection and Enforcement program's internal control reviews and that policies should be updated and widely circulated. Specifically, BLM wrote that by early August 2020, the bureau will issue updated guidance and procedures for conducting internal control reviews and that this guidance would take the form of a manual, handbook or Instruction Memorandum. BLM also wrote that it is establishing teams to conduct internal control reviews, monitoring the status of any past-due reviews and actively engaging across its multiple state offices to ensure timely resolution. In late August 2020, BLM's Audit Liaison Officer informed GAO that due to competing workload priorities and key management vacancies, BLM now plans to implement this recommendation by the end of June 2021.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In responding to our report, BLM stated that its July 2012 oversight policy, which expired in September 2013, should not have been allowed to lapse and given the importance of internal control reviews, the bureau will continue to use the July 2012 policy to conduct future reviews. In July 2019, BLM's Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management wrote a letter to GAO stating that the bureau agreed that there are additional opportunities to improve the Inspection and Enforcement program's internal control reviews and that policies should be updated and widely circulated. In addition, BLM wrote that by early August 2020, the bureau will issue updated guidance and procedures for conducting internal control reviews and that this guidance would take the form of a manual, handbook, or Instruction Memorandum. In late August 2020. BLM's Audit Liaison Officer informed GAO that due to competing workload priorities and key management vacancies, BLM now plans to implement this recommendation by the end of June 2021.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, BLM's Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management wrote a letter to GAO stating that the bureau agreed that there are additional opportunities to improve the Inspection and Enforcement program's internal control reviews and that policies should be updated and widely circulated. Specifically, BLM wrote that by early August 2020, the bureau will issue updated guidance and procedures for conducting internal control reviews and that this guidance would take the form of a manual, handbook, or Instruction Memorandum. In addition, BLM noted that the guidance will help ensure that the bureau completes internal control reviews in a timely manner using a consistent risk-based approach. In late August 2020. BLM's Audit Liaison Officer informed GAO that due to competing workload priorities and key management vacancies, BLM now plans to implement this recommendation by the end of June 2021.
GAO-19-212, Feb 7, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Contract Management Agency
Status: Open
Comments: DCMA concurred with our recommendation and the department notified us in March 2019 that collaboration between DCMA and DCAA to develop a mechanism to increase oversight and improve management of contractor business system audits and determinations had begun. In September 2019, DCMA and DCAA provided lists of the business system reviews planned to be conducted during fiscal year 2020, showing that the data needed for oversight of all CBS reviews is available between the two agencies. Further, an April 2019 DCMA memorandum indicated that DCAA data on planned reviews for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 had been transferred to DCMA and that administrate contracting officers were to conduct risk assessments to identify additional reviews for DCAA to complete in the future. In August 2020, DCMA and DCAA specified the sources of the data provided earlier; DCAA data is collected through its strategic workload and resource initiative and inputted into the DCAA Management Information System while DCMA business system review data continues to be maintained by the functional offices responsible for those reviews. Both agencies stated that progress against planned reviews is tracked and status is reported to management at regular intervals. DCMA also noted a series of new tools designed to enhance surveillance of contractor business systems and implementation of corrective actions. These steps indicate progress towards increased insight into both the completion CBS review and the follow-up that occurs afterward. However It remains unclear to what extent data sharing between DCAA and DCMA to support CBS review planning has been formalized and will continue or the extent to which DCMA headquarters uses this data to assess implementation of its policies for the conduct of CBS reviews.
GAO-19-244, Jan 31, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan. However, the updated plan did not include a description of the resources-- including dollar and personnel amounts--required to implement the plan. Instead, the updated plan states that no additional personnel or resources will be required to execute and manage the plan, and that those personnel executing and managing the plan are expected to do so in addition to their normal duties. In May 2020, DOD stated it intends to include additional information about the required resources in the plan's next revision. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the next iteration of the plan.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan which lays out a method for joint oversight. While GAO is encouraged and will monitor DOD's implementation efforts, it is too soon to determine the extent to which these efforts-when completed-will address DOD's fragmented management of its prepositioned stock programs. To fully address this recommendation, DOD needs to fully implement the joint oversight method outlined in the plan.
GAO-19-123, Jan 23, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA concurred with our recommendation. EPA stated that during the course of our work on this report, SEMS tribal data was reviewed for quality control and corrections were made to the existing data. In addition, EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation plans to create a schedule to review tribal data in SEMS and disseminate tribal data to Superfund regional coordinators annually for their quality assurance review starting in April 2019.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA concurred with our recommendation. EPA plans to issue a memo to regions that clarifies circumstances under which regions may consider tribal consultation for the Superfund program by March 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: EPA concurred with our recommendation and planned four actions in response. According to EPA, it (1) issued a memorandum to all Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators on the importance of tribal consultation in April 2019; (2) plans to issue monthly TCOTS report to Deputy Assistant Administrators and Regional Assistant Administrators on the status of consultations recorded in TCOTS; (3) developed training slides targeted to EPA's Regional Superfund staff on when and how to document consultation actions in TCOTS, presented during the annual 2019 National Association of Remedial Project Managers training in August 2019; and (4) revised a training module and draft TCOTS User Guide with particular emphasis on entering consultation information into TCOTS, with trainings scheduled in 2019.
GAO-19-88, Jan 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would work with Treasury to consider clarifying the issues raised by this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would work with Treasury to consider addressing the issues outlined in this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. However, DOL stated it plans to continue to evaluate whether there are circumstances in which the transfer of uncashed distribution checks from an ongoing plan to the states advances the goal of reuniting missing participants with their savings, which is consistent with this recommendation. We commend DOL for recognizing the importance of this issue and will monitor the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-19-112, Jan 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. In fiscal year 2019, HHS reported that it utilized Microsoft SharePoint to facilitate and begin to automate the Improper Payment Risk Assessment process. According to HHS, the SharePoint risk assessment form included the added ability to track the status of submissions and collect any applicable supporting documentation. Also, HHS stated that the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources staff discussed the importance of maintaining supporting documentation during the fiscal year 2019 Improper Payment Risk Assessment Kick-Off meeting with HHS's operating divisions, and also built this feature into the SharePoint form. In fiscal year 2020, HHS reported that the implementation of the long-term solution to conducting improper payment risk assessments, the Risk Assessment Portal (previously called the Automated Improper Payment Framework), is underway and went into production in March 2020. Additionally, HHS indicated that it has revised its improper payment questionnaire and scoring process to ensure HHS performs a reliable assessment of susceptibility to significant improper payments. Also, HHS stated that it will leverage the Risk Assessment Portal, new questionnaire, and revised scoring process in the fiscal year 2020 risk assessment reporting period. Further, HHS stated that it is reviewing GAO reports and resources, capturing best practices from other agencies, and soliciting feedback from HHS's operating divisions to further improve its processes. Last, HHS stated that it will continue to develop policies, procedures, and supporting tools throughout calendar year 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. In fiscal year 2019, HHS reported that it utilized DATA Act information to create an inventory of programs and activities that could potentially be subject to improper payment risk assessment requirements. According to HHS, it developed a risk-based methodology for selecting programs and activities for review using the DATA Act files. Data fields within the DATA Act files allow HHS to further analyze the program and activity inventory. For example, the object class data enabled HHS to categorize the program's spending to provide insight into each program's unique risks. HHS stated that this methodology was used and documented in fiscal year 2019 but HHS plans to further refine and finalize this approach. In fiscal year 2020, HHS reported that its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is currently reviewing the methodology as part of the Annual Inspector General review of HHS's improper payment reporting under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2020. HHS stated that it will implement any feedback from the OIG, as well as lessons learned from the fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 risk assessment reporting period, in fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not concur with this recommendation. In January 2020, DOJ reiterated that it continues to not concur with the recommendation. DOJ stated that its risk assessment methodology provides DOJ management with a reasonable basis for determining whether the law enforcement program, as well as DOJ's other four mission-aligned programs, are susceptible to significant improper payments. In addition, DOJ reiterated that it continues to not concur with GAO's conclusion that DOJ's risk assessment documentation is not adequate. DOJ stated that its documentation meets all of the requirements in the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing guidance. Therefore, DOJ stated that it does not believe it would be a prudent use of limited resources to expand on the documentation that already exists. DOJ stated that notwithstanding its differences from GAO on the recommendation, it will continue to examine its risk assessment methodology. Finally, DOJ stated that its goal has been, and continues to be, meeting the requirements of IPIA, as amended, and OMB's implementing guidance in a cost effective manner. We continue to believe this recommendation is appropriate because DOJ's risk assessment documentation did not adequately demonstrate how DOJ determined the weighting of the risk factors or the numerical risk level ranges or whether a program is or is not susceptible to significant improper payments. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address the recommendation.
GAO-19-100, Dec 21, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: According to Treasury, as of March 2019, the agency had requested that each Housing Finance Agency evaluate its controls and update its Risk and Control Matrix to ensure that it reflects the risk assessment level of each control that has been assessed and to provide this information to Treasury. Treasury stated that it would evaluate the risk assessments to verify that the appropriate risk level had been assessed and that proper segregation of duties exists. As of August 2020, Treasury had not demonstrated that it had annually collected or evaluated HFA's risk assessments.
GAO-19-50, Dec 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-19-34, Dec 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) was enacted to improve efforts to identify and reduce government-wide improper payments, including payments that are the result of fraud. PIIA repealed and replaced FRDAA. However, OMB and the other agencies subject to PIIA essentially must satisfy the same requirements established under FRDAA, including adhering to OMB's related guidelines. OMB has not updated its published guidelines for FRDAA as we recommended. If OMB takes additional actions to supplement guidelines under PIIA, we will review the guidelines to determine whether it addresses our recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) was enacted to improve efforts to identify and reduce government-wide improper payments, including payments that are the result of fraud. PIIA repealed and replaced FRDAA, but maintained similar reporting requirements for federal agencies regarding fraud risks and also extended the time line for reporting by a year. OMB did not update its previous reporting guidance for FRDAA as we recommended. If OMB takes additional actions to supplement reporting guidelines under PIIA, we will review the guidelines to determine whether it addresses our recommendation.
GAO-19-77, Dec 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7141
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: USAID concurred with GAO's recommendation and has begun to take corrective action in response. In a March 11, 2019 letter to congressional committees, USAID noted its commitment to address GAO's recommendation through implementing additional controls for the agency's counter-trafficking in persons projects. Specifically, USAID commented that it was implementing data systems and taking additional steps intended to strengthen data management, improve record-keeping, increase data quality, and build capacity of local partners, with a target completion date of April 2020. As of January 2020, USAID officials noted that the agency has piloted its information management system, the Development Information Solution (DIS), in 7 USAID missions and is considering a strategy to deploy the DIS agency-wide by the end of 2021. According to USAID officials and documents, work has been completed to build DIS features that will help to improve the consistency and completeness of performance information, such as the ability to create and centrally manage customized indicators within DIS as well as centrally track and manage project activities, targets, and results. USAID has also updated its performance monitoring policy to require the completion of Performance Management Plans, within 3 months of completion of the mission's Country Development Cooperation Strategy, instead of the previously required 6 months. In addition, according to USAID officials and documents GAO reviewed, USAID and the Department of State's (State) Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources have developed additional administrative reports and processes that encourage increased ownership and review of data in the FACTSinfo NextGen system, the system of record for performance information related to the expenditure of foreign assistance funds. According to USAID officials and documents GAO reviewed, in order to improve quality control for this data, USAID and State will conduct a high level administrative review of the performance reporting process, including of the participation of key stakeholders in this process, beginning in March 2020. Once USAID provides additional information to GAO, including information on steps to more fully deploy the DIS and implement changes resulting from its review of the PPR process under its new grants management data system, GAO will determine whether USAID has established additional controls to improve the consistency and completeness of performance information.
GAO-19-67, Nov 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
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-19-56, Nov 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: FNS officials agreed with this recommendation and indicated they are taking steps towards closing it. Specifically, FNS officials said they plan to take the following actions to disseminate strategies on increasing participation among SNAP recipients referred to the SNAP E&T program: 1) update the SNAP E&T Best Practices Study to include strategies on increasing participation by December 2021; 2) publish results from Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work Requirements and Work Effort Under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that include information regarding which outreach, referral, and enrollment processes are most effective by 2021; and 3) provide technical assistance through SNAP to Skills with new attention on increasing SNAP E&T participation and engagement among eligible SNAP participants. We will continue to monitor FNS's efforts to disseminate strategies through these mechanisms with a particular focus on ensuring these strategies reach both state officials and service providers.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: FNS generally agreed with this recommendation. They noted that they have been providing continued technical assistance to states to improve data quality and in October 2018 made updates to the SNAP E&T data report. FNS plans or has additional changes pending to the SNAP E&T data report and SNAP Quality Control guidance that it plans to use to collect improved SNAP E&T data in fiscal year 2021. In addition, FNS plans to leverage results from data and technical assistance grants upon their completion in September 2020 to disseminate best practices to help states improve outcome reporting data. We are encouraged by FNS's efforts in these areas and will evaluate the results of these actions as we continue to monitor the agency's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: FNS officials agreed with this recommendation. FNS officials noted that with the submission of January 2019 outcome reporting measures, the agency has a complete year of data which FNS will use to establish a baseline for each State's SNAP E&T program. However, FNS has not yet articulated how the data will be used to assess effectiveness of the programs, or provided examples of how FNS has used the data to provide feedback on the effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs. We will continue to monitor FNS's efforts to communicate to the states how the outcome data can be used to assess program effectiveness.
GAO-19-33, Nov 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, GSA developed and distributed a Standard Operating Procedure that established the Office of Administrative Services as having jurisdiction and program oversight for all internal agency exchange/sale transactions. GSA's Office of Administrative Services had also taken steps to coordinate with other GSA offices to coordinate annual exchange/sale data reporting for the agency. We will continue to monitor GSA's actions in addressing the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, VA's Office of Acquisition and Logistics, in conjunction with Veterans Health Administration's Procurement and Logistics Office, was working on updating the status of two policy notices to amend existing policy to include details on the exchange/sale authority and to collect data on exchange/sale usage within the agency as a basis for reviewing progress and compliance with VA utilization officers. We will continue to monitor the status of VA's actions to address our recommendation.
GAO-19-73, Nov 13, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4523
including 6 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us that the Army has required monitoring of its processes used for recording all real property information. Specifically, the Army developed a 5-year plan to address the recommendations to improve data quality and accountability in conjunction with the ongoing DOD financial statement audit. The plan reportedly requires measuring results through directed physical inspections and record updates, using a single, standardized Accountable Property System of Record (APSR) for all assets. DOD officials also told us that the Army developed an automated validation and second-person verification to comply with the requirements and business rules of the DOD Real Property Information Model (RPIM), and that it continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Army levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements have been established. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials stated that the Navy required monitoring of its processes used for recording real property information. Specifically, the Navy established a requirement for a 100% inventory check to ensure existence and completeness of its real property information. As part of DOD larger effort to improve its financial management through the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) guidance, DOD officials also told us that the Navy plans to implement the existence and completeness results provided by an independent Public Accounting Firm. Further, it will continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Navy levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had been put in place. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us that the Air Force has required monitoring of its processes for recording all required real property information. For example, the Air Force plans to establish a Data Quality Program (DQP) within the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Information Technology Functional Management Office to incorporate requirements for improving accuracy of its asset information in its Accountable Property System of Record (APSR). The Air Force also plans to revise its instruction AFI 32-9005 to define responsibility for the accuracy of data at the lowest level. Further, it plans to require use of OSD's validation and verification tool to identify and correct inaccuracies when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Air Force levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had yet been put in place. We await documentation of these requirements and will review them, once received, to assess the extent to which they meet the intent of our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation to define and document which data elements within its Real Property Assets Database (RPAD) submissions are most significant for decision-making. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they will conduct a review of all data elements in its Real Property Assets Database, including compiling list of all data elements actively being used by data consumers. DOD also plans to divide required data elements into blocks to begin strenuous monitoring for accuracy. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2023. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation to coordinate on corrective action plans to remediate discrepancies in significant data elements in its real property data system that are identified by OSD's verification and validation tool. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they plan to establish a senior leader Functional Governance Board to monitor accuracy compliance. DOD also plans to establish quarterly progress reports to be posted on the Data Analytics Integration Support (DAIS) application for constant monitoring by all users. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2022. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to collaborate with the military services on separate service strategies that reflect each military service's operating environment. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they plan to stabilize their Data Analytics Integration Support (DAIS) platform to improve data inventory by ensuring successful network connectivity for all military service users. DOD will update policy guidance to formalize the use of the DAIS platform for inventory submission by the military services. DOD also will develop and formalize in policy benchmarks and metrics to monitor data accuracy. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2023. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.
GAO-19-39, Nov 8, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to develop a standardized process for identifying annual funding levels to perform the duties of each Corrosion Executive. It plans to include this process in a new DOD manual on corrosion that it has a goal of creating by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to develop and implement a standardized operating procedure for processing and documenting its review of the Corrosion Executive Reports. It plans to complete and implement this standardized operating procedure by November 1, 2019 . We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to develop and maintain a process for documenting the Office's reviews, evaluations, and comments, and to track the weapon system programs' actions on corrosion planning. It plans to include this process in a new DOD manual on corrosion that will include information on considering corrosion during the weapon system program-planning evaluation process, and to develop an internal data system for tracking purposes. Its goal is to create this new manual and internal data system is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Army has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Army 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.
GAO-19-4, Oct 23, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation, and in March 2019 the Department of the Navy directed Commander, Navy Installations Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm any further actions the Navy has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
Status: Open
Comments: The Marine Corps did not concur with this recommendation. However, in written comments, DOD stated that the Department of the Navy would implement this recommendation and that it would be applicable to both the Navy and Marine Corps. In March 2019, the Department of the Navy directed Marine Corps Installation Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Marine Corps has taken in response to this direction, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, 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
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, GAO confirmed that FERC had developed new standard operating procedures related for tracking deficiencies and follow-up items arising from dam safety inspections and other dam safety reviews. In addition, FERC told GAO that they plan to update their tracking system beginning in fiscal year 2021, which will facilitate the complete recording and subsequent analysis of safety deficiencies from inspections across FERC's portfolio of regulated dams. GAO will continue to monitor FERC's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2019, FERC told GAO that it had begun developing a screening-level risk-assessment program to assess safety risks across the inventory of regulated dams and to help guide safety decisions. In February 2020, GAO confirmed that FERC had completed this screening-level risk assessment, and conducted some preliminary analysis of the results. In addition, FERC told GAO that the results of the screening level risk analyses will be used to revise the potential timing, frequency, and technical disciplines represented on dam safety inspections; to confirm or revise the urgency of existing and potential new follow up dam safety actions; and to identify previously unrecognized dam safety concerns and issues; to identify new dam safety priorities. GAO will continue to monitor FERC's efforts to implement this program.
GAO-19-15, Oct 3, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Benefits Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VBA is working to develop and implement a new measure to assess the accuracy of each regional office. We will close this recommendation once VA has finalized and implemented the new measure.
GAO-18-698, Sep 28, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated October 15, 2018, IRS's Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement stated that IRS is in the process of designing a new FBAR database solution using the FISMA-compliant Entellitrak case management system. The solution will include data fields and systemic controls to ensure the accurate recording and reporting of FBAR case information essential to the whistleblower program. As of December 2019, IRS officials said they are on track to complete this action by June 2020. When we can confirm that IRS has completed this action, we will provide updated information.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: United States Postal Service
Status: Open
Comments: USPS has completed a cost study to adopt an operational internal control framework. USPS has targeted December 31, 2020, for completion and implementation of this new internal control framework.
GAO-18-672, Sep 27, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-658, Sep 27, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA officials provided documentation showing approval as of September 2019 for the procurement of a perpetual inventory management system that would allow VA medical facilities to keep track of inventory for all prescription drugs and assist VA with system-wide oversight. As of January 2020, this contract has yet to be awarded. In January 2020, VA officials also stated that Pharmacy Benefits Management (PBM) Services has been designated as the focal point for overseeing VA medical facilities' inventory management system-wide. VA officials stated that PBM is responsible for developing VA medical facility inventory management policy; however, VA did not provide documentation on PBM's defined responsibilities for system-wide oversight in the absence of an inventory system and once the system is procured. We plan to keep this recommendation open until we receive documentation of PBM's defined responsibilities for overseeing VAMC's pharmacy inventory management system-wide.
GAO-18-666, Sep 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2020, SBA officials told us that the agency is re-aligning resources and developing standards to reflect new processing times for certifications and recertifications, which will include revised employee performance elements and quarterly performance reviews. When SBA has completed these changes, we will assess whether the agency is conducting and documenting reviews of staff compliance.
GAO-18-491, Sep 20, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB staff provided us with oral comments stating that the agency partially concurred with our recommendations. For our second recommendation, OMB agreed that user feedback data regarding the Career Roadmap Builder and Grants Training 101 is useful. However, OMB stated that while it will continue to collect data on the number of users, it believes that federal agencies should be responsible for collecting specific, detailed user data if they are using those resources. We continue to believe that OMB and CFOC would benefit from collecting specific, detailed user data on these tools, which they devoted time and multiple resources to developing. Collecting detailed data metrics that go beyond the number of users can help OMB and CFOC to better evaluate the effectiveness of these grants training tools. Additionally, OMB stated the agency is committed to working with CFOC to review the Grants Training 101 module to determine how useful it is and if any improvements or adjustments are needed. In May 2019, OMB staff said that no action had been taken to date in response to this recommendation. In January 2020, OMB responded in writing to this recommendation stating that it was continuing to collect data on usage for both training tools on the CFO.gov site. OMB specified, however, that the usage data was for the number of visitors on the two sites and on users by agency. OMB went on to say that each agency is responsible for the professional development of its own workforce, and that Federal agencies can, at their discretion, collect user data if the Roadmap and Grant Training 101 are part of their official training program. In addition, OMB stated it had made the Grants Training 101 available publicly for federal and non-federal personnel on CFO.Gov, and that collecting specific user data is not considered by them to be beneficial to demonstrate the usefulness of the materials. Based on this response, we will continue to inquire as to the availability and use of metrics and effectiveness measures for the Career Roadmap and the Grants Training 101 modules.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with our findings and recommendation. In its comment letter, HHS stated that its Office of Grants Policy, Oversight, and Evaluation, within the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Division of Grants, in conjunction with the HHS ReInvent Grants Initiative would be developing and implementing a department-wide financial assistance training and certification program to improve the functional effectiveness of the financial assistance management workforce in the areas of internal controls and risk mitigation. The program is designed to support the professional development of the HHS grants management workforce through both instructor-led and online courses. HHS' ReInvent Grants Management (RGM) staff and GAO held a conference call on November 30th, 2018 to discuss how RGM intended to address the recommendation in GAO-18-491 by developing a generalized framework for the Grants Management Training and Certification (GMTC) program for HHS. An HHS official reported that at its December 2019 quarterly meeting, the HHS Division of Workforce Development (DWD) reported they had in the past quarter: briefed the HHS Executive Committee on Grants Administration Policy (ECGAP) on the DWD mission and goals for training the grants workforce; developed briefing documents and presentations based on a RGM developed framework to develop competencies and outline curriculum of the GMTC program; continued to review and refine the program framework to incorporate DWD mission and goals; drafted the initial policy to further inform the structure and procedures of the GMTC program (e.g. certification levels, required coursework, career development requirements), which should be issued by HHS Office of Grants within Federal Fiscal Year 2020; and collaborated with the HHS Grants Closeout Business Process Reengineering Team to discuss current grants closeout status and how DWD can support grant staff and grant recipient closeout training efforts. Given the ongoing nature of HHS efforts, GAO will continue to monitor progress on a quarterly basis.
GAO-18-643, Sep 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA stated that the authority periodically evaluates the risks posed by the unfunded liabilities for its pension plans and other post-employment benefits. Specifically, WMATA officials stated that consulting agencies are used to conduct sensitivity analysis regarding the funded status of WMATA's five pension plans under various economic scenarios. However, WMATA has not yet provided GAO with these analyses to assess what information they contain and whether they include information on potential future required payments and unfunded liabilities under adverse scenarios. GAO will continue to work with WMATA to obtain these analyses and monitor WMATA's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA officials stated that the Authority did not provide funding in 2019 to obtain a consultant to assist with authority-wide strategic workforce planning, as WMATA had previously planned. WMATA officials told us that the Authority is evaluating funding availability for this effort in the upcoming fiscal year, but in consideration to the impacts of the coronavirus crisis, broad economic uncertainties, and other challenges facing the Authority. WMATA did not provide information as to whether it would be conducting additional workforce planning efforts using its in-house staff and resources. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA created documented procedures for managers and staff who are not represented by a union to use in the performance management cycles for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. These included guidance, instructional videos, or other tools for setting employee performance objectives in relation to WMATA's strategic priorities, and conducting mid-year reviews and end-of year performance evaluations. WMATA reported that it also intends to develop procedures to support performance management for some of its union-represented employees, starting in fiscal year 2021 with the Metro Transit Police Department. WMATA expects to implement changes for other represented employee groups beginning in fiscal year 2022. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's progress in addressing this recommendation.
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA has taken steps to establish controls for its employee performance management system. Specifically, WMATA developed an automated tool to track employee and supervisor compliance with WMATA's performance management requirements, and provided GAO with information on how WMATA used this tool to set employee performance objectives and complete mid-year reviews in the fiscal year 2020 performance cycle. WMATA reported that end-of-year performance evaluations would be completed by the end of July 2020. GAO will review WMATA's completion of the 2020 performance cycle to process to assess whether WMATA has fully implemented our recommendation.
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, WMATA officials told us that its automated performance management tool will provide information on employee performance information across the organization and allow for data-driven decision making. Specifically, WMATA stated that managers can view year-end ratings and other information for every employee within their chain of command, and WMATA's senior leadership have a global view of the ratings to compare performance ratings distributions across departments. WMATA reported that it is currently completing its fiscal year 2020 performance cycle, which ends July 31, 2020. GAO will continue to follow WMATA's progress addressing this recommendation, including assessing whether the information in its automated performance management tool will help WMATA monitor progress toward achieving its strategic goals.
GAO-18-592, Sep 6, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2775
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and noted planned actions. DOD's Human Resources Reform Team has 3 objectives as part of its reform agenda, including civilian hiring improvements. DOD issued its initial plan for business operations reform in April 2019, which includes detailed information and timelines for actions carried out and planned for this reform team. It stated that the team would conduct an annual review of components' time-to-hire plans and work towards establishment of common DOD process and metrics for civilian hiring and establishing baselines and goals for quality metrics through the end of fiscal year 2019. Further, quarterly assessment of survey data using baseline quality metrics is planned to begin in early fiscal year 2020. DOD officials stated that a departmentwide Time-to-Hire Workgroup was established in March 2019 and conducted six workshops to develop a reengineered process map for civilian hiring and an associated implementation plan. Implementation is to occur along with a new IT system for civilian human resources that is expected to be deployed in fiscal year 2021, but we have not received documentation of the specific requirements for implementation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and noted planned actions. In its written comments, DOD stated the department is on track to achieve substantial savings through its reform team efforts and CMO emphasis on strong management practices, integrated processes, and best value business investments. DOD issued its initial plan for business operations reform in April 2019, which included detailed information regarding the department's plans for reforming its human resources service delivery. Subsequently, DOD identified 3 human resources management IT system reform projects aimed as identifying and adopting optimal IT systems for its overall civilian human resource management, the defense travel program, and overall training and learning. The reform management group has overseen these reform projects. DOD officials stated that it expects these optimal IT systems to be fully operational later in fiscal year 2020 and 2021. Further, DOD has identified timeframes throughout fiscal year 2023 for identifying and implementing an effective and efficient shared service delivery model for human resources. DOD has made considerable progress in identifying optimal IT systems and service delivery model for its human resources services, and we will continue to monitor the assessment and implementation of these systems and delivery models.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and noted planned actions. In its written comments, DOD stated the department is on track to achieve substantial savings through its reform team efforts and CMO emphasis on strong management practices, integrated processes, and best value business investments. DOD issued its initial plan for business operations reform in April 2019, which included detailed information regarding the department's plans for reforming its human resources service delivery. As part of this effort, DOD officials stated that the department has collected data and information on services, performance, and pricing to provide basis for common definitions and standards as they determine the most effective, economical, and efficient model of human resources service delivery. Further, efforts are continuing to develop a standardized costing model for human resources service delivery, which officials estimate will be approved for use by early fiscal year 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD submitted to Congress its initial plan for business operations reform. It included an initial plan, schedule, and cost estimate for conducting these reforms. The plan states that a reform initiative framework was implemented to track and report progress of initiatives, and that financial savings will be monitored by a validation process. In December 2019, DOD issued a follow-up report providing additional baseline estimates related to the four areas. DOD officials stated that a reform initiative framework has been implemented to track and report progress of initiatives and that financial savings will be monitored by a validation process. The charter for the Reform Management Group, issued February 2019, directs the governance body to reform and align business functions of the department as well as tracking the progress of those reform efforts. Further, DOD reported on baselines in its January 2020 report to Congress to fulfill the requirements of Section 921 from the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. As of June 2020, DOD provided a corrective action plan that details plans to further evaluate results and financial savings associated with its efficiency initiatives. We will continue to review DOD's efforts throughout the year to ensure this monitoring and evaluation is occurring.
GAO-18-618, Sep 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-18-618, published in September 2018. State noted that it intends to amend templates for relevant implementing documents to address human rights as appropriate. In February 2020, State officials indicated that they had expressly included requirements for human rights components in new police training agreements established since we made our recommendation, and in May 2020 provided some examples of those requirements. We continue to work with State to learn about internal control mechanisms they may have established to help ensure they continue to include human rights content in police training as appropriate.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: State concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-18-618, published in September 2018. State commented that, partly in response to our report, it was developing specific indicators related to INL-funded police training. In February 2020, State officials indicated that contractors hired to work on developing measures to track the impact of INL efforts would be developing a database to store results, including the number of police trained. In addition, State told us that INL's implementing partner working in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras also keeps a list of individuals who attend training. In May 2020, officials noted an effort to pilot the implementation of improved data collection was underway in Honduras. We continue working with State officials as they make progress developing and implementing their new process to collect and maintain police training data. As we confirm actions taken by State in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-547, Sep 5, 2018
Phone: (617) 788-0534
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation and reported in September 2019 that it was continuing its efforts to improve and streamline guidance for the PSLF servicer. While Education said it is working on developing its comprehensive PSLF servicing manual, it does not yet have a timeline for how it will complete this manual and has indicated that it intends to deliver completed chapters on an iterative basis based on servicing priorities. To implement this recommendation, Education needs to develop a timeline for completing the PSLF servicing manual and demonstrate that it will provide comprehensive guidance and instructions for PSLF servicing.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and in December 2018, the agency released a new online tool to help borrowers better understand the PSLF eligibility requirements. Education has indicated that this tool could eventually be expanded to incorporate additional qualifying employer information. Education has also indicated that implementation of the recommendation is tied to the rollout of a new loan servicing system, which it expects to be fully operational in October 2021. To implement this recommendation, Education needs to demonstrate that it is providing information that will help the PSLF servicer and borrowers determine whether employment with specific employers will qualify borrowers for the program.
Agency: Department of Education: Office of Federal Student Aid
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, and in June 2020, reported that it is reviewing communications from the PSLF servicer to ensure that borrowers receive sufficiently detailed information regarding payment counts and payment history. Education also indicated that implementation of the recommendation is tied to the rollout of a new loan servicing system, which it expects to be fully operational in October 2021. We will close the recommendation once Education provides documentation of the changes in communications from the PSLF servicer that demonstrate borrowers are receiving sufficiently detailed information regarding payment counts and payment history.
GAO-18-610, Sep 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, DOT reported that the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is in the process of completing development of its new risk management program and anticipates having a final product that will be implemented by the end of 2020. GAO will continue to monitor the SLSDC's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-18-557, Sep 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.
GAO-18-593, Aug 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its May 15, 2020 correspondence, the Forest Service stated that it is putting together a Corrective Action Plan for addressing the recommendation. It expects leadership review of the plan to be completed in June 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In its April 9, 2020 correspondence, BLM stated that a proposed rule continues to be reviewed by Departmental officials. BLM identified December 31, 2020 as a new target date for completing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open
Comments: In its May 15, 2020 correspondence, the Forest Service stated that it is putting together a Corrective Action Plan for addressing the recommendation. It expects leadership review of the plan to be completed in June 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In its April 9, 2020 correspondence, BLM stated that any action to address this recommendation is contingent upon the completion of Recommendation #2. Once BLM's response to that recommendation is completed, the agency will address this recommendation.
GAO-18-586R, Aug 15, 2018
Phone: 202-512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to a corrective action plan that DOD updated in July 2020, the department has taken some steps to implement this recommendation. According to the plan, DOD is developing standards for mishap data through the Safety and Information Management Working Group and is making progress towards finalizing mishap data element standards. DOD's internal tracking indicates that the draft business process model has been completed, but standardizing the DOD data elements is a work in-progress. DOD's estimated completion date for this effort is June 2021. Completing these actions would allow the military services' safety centers to collect relevant training-related data as part of the update of aviation mishap data elements, as GAO recommended in August 2018.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to a corrective action plan that DOD updated in July 2020, the department has taken some steps to implement this recommendation. According to the plan, DOD is revising DOD Instruction 6055.07, which will clarify the department's policy that it is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for conducting analysis and its access to the military services' information on human factors that contributed to aviation mishaps. DOD's estimated completion date for this effort is July 2021. Completing this action would clarify the Office of the Secretary of Defense's role for conducting analyses and access to the military services' safety centers' data on aviation mishaps, as GAO recommended in August 2018.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to a corrective action plan that DOD updated in July 2020, the department has taken some steps to implement this recommendation. According to the plan, DOD is developing standards for mishap data through the Safety and Information Management Working Group and is making progress towards finalizing mishap data element standards. DOD's internal tracking indicates that the draft business process model has been completed, but standardizing the DOD data elements is a work in-progress. DOD's estimated completion date for this effort is June 2021. Completing these actions would allow the military services' safety centers to collect relevant training-related data as part of the update of aviation mishap data elements, as GAO recommended in August 2018.
GAO-18-424, Aug 8, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials stated that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials estimate completing this by 9/30/2022.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials said that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials said that after agreement on the new funding targets is reached, work will begin to develop measurable performance goals. OSD officials estimate that this work will be completed by 9/30/2022.
GAO-18-564, Aug 6, 2018
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 has taken steps to conduct a comprehensive national risk assessment. As of October 2019, CMS had developed a standard tool to assess risk and staff capacity. The agency indicated that once the assessment is complete, CMS will identify opportunities to increase resources, review the current allocation of financial staff, and determine the appropriate allocation of staff by state. We will continue to monitor CMS's action to complete this assessment.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, CMS indicated that the agency held meetings to clarify internal guidance on the variance analysis and is the process of drafting updated guidance for the CMS-64 review. We will continue to monitor CMS's actions to update the guidance.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, CMS indicated that given their current resources, they believe the sampling methodology is sufficient and have no plans to revise it. The agency noted that the current methodology requires a minimum sample size but gives reviewers the flexibility to expand the size of the sample if warranted by risk and as resources permit. We continue to believe that the current methodology does not sufficiently target areas of high risk.
GAO-18-537, Aug 6, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, we have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and are awaiting a response on actions they may have taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Since August 2018, Interior's Office of International Affairs has updated its contact list for international repatriation assistance with information on the Department's roles and responsibilities in support of international repatriation. In addition, Interior's interagency working group members have developed a description of the interagency working group. However, the statement does not include outcomes and objectives for the group's work. GAO made the same recommendation to each of the four agencies covered in the review because implementing leading collaboration practices will require the collective participation of group members. GAO will keep the recommendation open until further collaborative actions are taken.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, we have reached out to the Department of Justice and are awaiting a response on actions they may have taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: Since August 2018, the Department of State shared a statement of its roles and responsibilities with other working group members. However, the statement does not include outcomes and objectives for the group's work. GAO made the same recommendation to each of the four agencies covered in the review because implementing leading collaboration practices will require the collective participation of group members. GAO will keep the recommendation open until further collaborative actions are taken.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, we have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and are awaiting a response on actions they may have taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, we have reached out to the Department of Justice and are awaiting a response on actions they may have taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, we have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and are awaiting a response on actions they may have taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, Interior is working to develop an assessment of legislative options for discussion with the interagency working group, and plans to meet with tribes later this fall to discuss the assessment. Interior anticipates a September 30, 2020, completion date for the assessment of these legislative options. Interior has also reviewed legislative proposals related to the export, theft, and trafficking of Native American cultural items and has prepared for Congressional hearings on this topic.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, we have reached out to the Department of Justice and are awaiting a response on actions they may have taken in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, the Department of State, in conjunction with other interagency working group members, circulated a draft legal assessment and draft legislative options. The interagency working group members conducted a listening session with tribal members in November 2019, and conducted a tribal consultation in January 2020. GAO will continue monitoring the agencies' efforts toward implementing this recommendation.
GAO-18-246R, Aug 1, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation. Per NNSA, as of October 2018, it was developing a plan and schedule for implementing Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs), which will include monitoring how NNSA field offices manage older management and operating contract documents and use the results to improve access to such documents. As of April 2020, we will continue to monitor how NNSA carries out its oversight of field offices contract document management practices.
GAO-18-391, Jul 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
GAO-18-405, Jul 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, CBP provided documentation of a data verification checklist used by its Office of Professional Responsibility for the Joint Integrity Case Management System. However, CBP also needs to develop a similar tool or method to verify case management data contained in its Human Resource Business Engine system. And to fully implement this recommendation, CBP needs to revise policy or guidance to ensure documentation of control activities (data verification and legal review of adverse actions) in its case management systems. We are continuing to follow-up on the actions taken by CBP to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, CBP told us that it is currently updating one of its case management systems to better monitor cases beginning-to-end by stage and by case type. Once implemented, CBP's Office of Professional Responsibility will develop an internal management report that includes information on caseload and associated timelines. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is September 30, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow up with CBP on its actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, CBP stated that it is currently updating one of its case management systems to better monitor the timeliness of misconduct cases according to established targets. Once updated, CBP's Office of Professional Responsibility will develop an internal management report that includes information on caseload and associated timelines. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is September 30, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow up with CBP on its actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, CBP stated that its Office of Professional Responsibility will define the case management system data fields used to measure established performance targets, and it will provide the appropriate guidance to staff. The estimated completion date of this recommendation is September 30, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow up with CBP on its actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2018, ICE provided documentation of related communication provided to staff. However, this documentation did not include revised policy or guidance documents that requires staff to document the investigative findings in the employee misconduct case management system. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow-up on ICE's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, ICE stated that it is revising its policy for its self-Inspection program to track the status of related corrective actions. ICE also stated that it will review three program offices for compliance with these revised policies and procedures during fiscal year 2019. The estimated completion date of this recommendation is June 28, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow-up on ICE's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, ICE stated that beginning in fiscal year 2019, a project team will develop the capability to monitor the duration of all employee misconduct cases beginning-to-end by stage and by case type. The estimated completion date of this recommendation is June 28, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow-up on ICE's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, ICE stated that its Office of Professional Responsibility developed guidance regarding established targets for the completion of management inquiries and will distribute the guidance to applicable staff. ICE also stated that it is developing timeliness targets for Employee Relations specialist review of proposals and decisions of disciplinary outcomes and will also distribute this guidance to applicable staff. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is June 28, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow-up on ICE's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2018, ICE stated that it will work to define and document the case management system data fields and methodology to be used for monitoring all established performance targets and will provide related guidance to applicable staff. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is June 28, 2019. As of September 2020, we are continuing to follow-up on ICE's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, TSA provided documentation of internal reports that measure duration. However, the reports do not provide management information on the duration of all case types from beginning-to-end and, by stage. TSA needs to provide evidence that it monitors the duration of all cases, including a description of which process stages are measured and which data fields are used to measure the total duration from beginning-to-end and by stage. We are continuing to follow up on the actions taken by TSA to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, TSA provided evidence of reports it uses to measure duration. However, these reports do not show how TSA performs with regards to established targets. TSA needs to provide evidence of how it monitors the timeliness of all established targets , including which specific data fields are used to measure these targets. We are continuing to follow up on the actions taken by TSA to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, TSA provided guidance to its staff related to monitoring performance targets. However, these documents do not specify which system data should be used as part of the methodology for monitoring all established performance targets. TSA needs to provide documentation of guidance to staff that defines and documents all the specific case management system data field names (in the various databases, as applicable) and methodology staff should use to monitor all established timeliness targets. We are continuing to follow up on the actions taken by TSA to implement this recommendation.
GAO-18-553, Jul 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9601
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February and May 2019, DSCA informed us that it had taken some steps to implement this recommendation, including establishing an automatic interface with certain DOD components' accounting systems to provide DSCA with daily information and data on those components' actual spending of FMS administrative funds. DSCA noted that it is working toward establishing automatic interfaces for the other components that receive these funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that implementation is ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation .
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, DSCA noted that it is undertaking an initiative to incorporate reconciliation capabilities into its oversight of components' use of FMS administrative funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation .
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, DSCA informed us that it had conducted two business process reviews for military departments in 2019. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, DSCA informed us that it planned to conduct one review for another DOD component (e.g., other than a military department) in fall 2019. In January 2019, it collaborated with other DOD components that receive FMS administrative funds to develop risk-based criteria for selecting components for periodic business process reviews . DSCA also provided updated policies and procedures for these reviews, which state that DSCA will conduct at least one review for another DOD component annually. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, DSCA provided supporting documentation to show that, as part of its annual budget review cycle, it had required DOD components to provide a list of sub-components/organizations that receive FMS administrative funds. In October 2019, DSCA provided a list of sub-components/organizations that DSCA obtained as part of the 2019 annual budget cycle. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, DSCA provided updated standard operating procedures for selecting military department organizations for reviews of their business processes for administrative funds. As of August 2020, we are reviewing the documentation provided and following up with DSCA to determine the extent to which the new procedures reflect a risk-based approach.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it had updated its policies and procedures to reflect that it will track action items from business process reviews every 30 days, until the action items area completed. DSCA needs to providing supporting documentation for its efforts to track action items. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation .
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it was in the process of conducting "mock" audits of DOD components' use of FMS administrative funds, and that it was undergoing efforts to ensure that a process is in place for the financial review of components' actual spending of these funds. DSCA noted that these efforts were ongoing in October 2019. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February and May 2019, DSCA informed us that it had taken some steps to implement this recommendation, including establishing an automatic interface with certain DOD components' accounting systems to provide DSCA with daily information and data on those components' actual spending of FMS CAS funds. DSCA noted that it is working toward establishing automatic interfaces for the other components that receive these funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that implementation is ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2019, DSCA noted that it is undertaking an initiative to incorporate reconciliation capabilities into its oversight of components' use of FMS CAS funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it was in the process of conducting "mock" audits of DOD components' use of FMS CAS funds, and that it was undergoing efforts to ensure that a process is in place for the financial review of components' actual spending of these funds. As of October 2019, DSCA noted that these efforts were ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-18-48, Jul 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM disagreed with this recommendation and cautioned against creating a comprehensive catalog of forms of misconduct because such an approach could expose agencies to the argument that any conduct that was not captured by OPM is not a permissible basis for discipline. In January 2020, OPM stated they are compiling disciplinary data collected from agencies under Executive Order 13839 and anticipate the data will be posted in the near future on OPM.gov.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially agreed with this recommendation. In December 2018, OPM stated that it plans to continue to use promising practices and to issue guidance on progressive discipline and tables of penalties. On July 2, 2019, OPM restated it partially concurs with this recommendation. OPM stated that it issued a guidance memorandum to Federal agencies on October 10, 2018, to aid in the implementation of Executive Order 13839, section 5, Ensuring Integrity of Personnel Files. As of January, 2020, OPM stated they are finalizing compiling disciplinary data collected from agencies under that Executive Order and anticipates it will be posted in the near future on OPM.gov. OPM also stated they are in the process of updating online employee relations training to be made available to human resources practitioners and managers later this year.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM partially agreed with this recommendation. On September 17, 2019, OPM published a proposed rule pertaining to probationary periods, performance-based actions, and adverse actions. The public comment period for this proposed rule closed on October 17, 2019. As of January 2020, OPM said they received comments from 1,199 individuals. OPM stated that they are reviewing, analyzing, and adjudicating all comments received in order to prepare a final rule later in 2020. Once the final rule is published, OPM stated they will work with the CHCO Council to educate supervisors on the new rule in accordance with Executive Order 13839.
GAO-18-455, Jun 26, 2018
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education identified steps it plans to take to address each of the three components we recommended. First, to increase outreach to individual HBCUs, Education stated it will send letters to presidents and chancellors of eligible HBCUs that are not yet participating, in addition to existing activities. Second, Education stated that it plans to use methods similar to those currently used to reach out to public HBCUs, depending on resources, to coordinate directly with state university systems. Third, Education noted it plans to explore ways to leverage the designated bonding authority to do so. Education also stated that an HBCU's ability to use the program depends on its financial strength, and government resources alone will not ensure financial strength among struggling institutions. We agree; however, it is important to make HBCUs aware of the resources available to them, particularly a federal program that was created to help address HBCUs' capital financing challenges. Education expects to complete these effort by February 28, 2020.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education partially agreed with this recommendation, commenting that it disagreed with the recommendation to the extent that it suggests a modification of loan terms. However, our recommendation does not endorse providing loan modifications to colleges but is focused on analyzing the costs and benefits of modifications authorized by law, as well as other potential modifications. Education noted it will continue to analyze loan modifications and develop cost estimates. Our report noted, however, that Education was not able to provide evidence of analysis it conducted on potential loan modifications. We continue to believe that analysis of costs and benefits is needed to determine whether additional loan modifications are necessary or beneficial for the program. The agency anticipates completing its efforts by December 2025.
Phone: (202) 512-9110
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had taken preliminary steps to prioritize its foundational initiatives in its Identity Assurance Strategy and Roadmap (Roadmap), as GAO recommended in June 2018. For example, IRS documentation stated that initial efforts to update the original Roadmap included collecting implementation documents for the 14 foundational initiatives. IRS stated that this information and progress that IRS has made on the initiatives shows that the initiatives are a priority for IRS leadership. However, IRS has not used this information to clearly prioritize in-progress initiatives or supporting activities going forward. IRS stated that it intends to update its Roadmap annually, including prioritizing new and existing authentication initiatives and capabilities. IRS's continued attention to this action will help ensure that in-progress authentication initiatives are prioritized and completed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, IRS officials had developed a draft policy for conducting risk assessments for telephone, in-person, and correspondence channels for authentication, as we recommended. IRS officials stated that once this policy is approved, it will be used to develop a plan to perform risk assessments for these authentication channels. IRS's continued attention to this recommendation will help ensure that it is aware of emerging threats to the tax environment.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, IRS officials stated that they will develop a plan for performing risk assessments for telephone, in-person, and correspondence channels for authentication by May 2020. Until IRS develops and implements this plan, these authentication channels may be more vulnerable to fraudulent activity, including unauthorized attempts to access taxpayer information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, IRS officials stated that the agency intends to implement this recommendation by spring 2020. Officials noted that developing a systemic solution for collecting data on all authentication outcomes is complex and involves multiple IRS business divisions. Until IRS fully addresses this recommendation, it will have limited insight into the number of taxpayers who fail authentication and the reason for failure.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, IRS stated that it has planned enhancements to its authentication data collection procedures in AMS. Officials stated that by June 2020, they intend to implement improvements for ensuring data quality of authentication outcomes. Until IRS fully implements our recommendation, it will be limited in conducting systematic data analysis on taxpayer authentication outcomes.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, IRS officials told us that IRS has explored options that will allow the agency to more effectively record, track, and monitor authentication outcomes. IRS officials said that they are developing and testing a tool to document Taxpayer Protection Program interactions, outcomes of taxpayer authentication, and the reasons for authentication failures. Officials stated that IRS plans to have this tool implemented by spring 2020, one year later than originally planned. Officials stated that the delay is due to additional technical programming to fully develop the tool. We will follow up on IRS's actions to determine the extent to which they implement our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has taken steps to implement this recommendation. Efforts include developing plans for a new authentication capability to authenticate taxpayer's identities online using external partners, consistent with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance. IRS officials told us that they plan to work with external partners to perform additional testing on its new authentication platform this year, including a usability study to understand user experience. IRS officials also stated that they are determining a schedule for fully implementing these NIST-compliant taxpayer authentication capabilities. IRS's timely implementation of NIST's guidance is critical to help the agency mitigate potential security weaknesses in its existing online authentication programs.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has taken steps to develop plans for a new authentication capability to authenticate taxpayer's identities online using external partners, consistent with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance. IRS officials stated that they are determining a schedule for fully implementing these NIST-compliant taxpayer authentication capabilities. As noted in our report, IRS's timely implementation of NIST's new guidance is critical, as it can help the agency mitigate potential security weaknesses in its existing online authentication programs.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had taken steps to develop a repeatable, comprehensive process to identify and evaluate alternative options for improving taxpayer authentication, as GAO recommended in June 2018. IRS stated that the draft process was being reviewed by the Chief Privacy Officer and it expects to finalize the process in spring 2020. IRS also stated that the Identity Assurance office will be ready to use the repeatable process once it is approved by IRS leadership. IRS's continued attention to this action will help ensure that it has a sound rationale for its investment decisions and the resources it needs to make authentication improvements in a timely manner.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had taken steps to develop a repeatable, comprehensive process to identify and evaluate alternative options for improving taxpayer authentication. However, IRS had not yet included and prioritized these options, as appropriate, in IRS's Identity Assurance Strategy and Roadmap (Roadmap), as GAO recommended in June 2018. IRS stated that it expects to finalize its process to evaluate alternative authentication options in spring 2020. IRS documentation states that it plans to update its Roadmap annually, but it has not articulated a timeline for doing so in 2020. IRS's continued attention to this action will help ensure that it has a sound rationale for its investment decisions and the resources it needs to make authentication improvements in a timely manner.
GAO-18-480, Jun 21, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: HHS does not concur with this recommendation and, as of July 2020, did not plan to take any actions to implement the recommendation. As noted in our report, without complete information on contract pharmacy arrangements--including information on with sites of a covered entity have contracts with a contract pharmacy--HRSA cannot ensure that it is optimally targeting the limited number of audits done each year. Additionally, manufacturers lack important information to help ensure that 340B discounted drugs are only provided to pharmacies with a valid 340B contract with the covered entity site for which the drug is being dispensed.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, HHS indicated that it believes that guidance does not provide HRSA appropriate enforcement capability and that this recommendation can only be accomplished after policy is issued. HRSA has requested regulatory authority for all aspects of the 340B Program in the FY 2021 President's Budget.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, HHS indicated that it believes that guidance does not provide HRSA appropriate enforcement capability and that this recommendation can only be accomplished after policy is issued. HRSA has requested regulatory authority for all aspects of the 340B Program in the FY 2021 President's Budget.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, HHS indicated that it believes that guidance does not provide HRSA appropriate enforcement capability and that this recommendation can only be accomplished after policy is issued. HRSA has requested regulatory authority for all aspects of the 340B Program in the FY 2021 President's Budget.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: HHS does not concur with this recommendation and, as of July 2020, did not plan to take any actions to implement the recommendation. HHS noted that requiring all covered entities subject to an audit to specify their methodology for identifying the full scope of noncompliance identified during the audit would create a significant burden for covered entities. However, as noted in our report, HRSA already requires covered entities with audit findings to determine the full scope of noncompliance and requires entities subject to a targeted audit to provide their methodology for such assessments to HRSA. Thus, it is unclear how requiring covered entities subject to risk-based, as opposed to targeted, audits to provide HRSA with a written description of methodologies that they are already required to formulate and implement would create a significant additional burden. Without this information, HRSA does not have reasonable assurance that the majority of covered entities have adequately identified all instances of noncompliance.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: HHS does not concur with this recommendation and, as of July 2020, did not plan to take any actions to implement the recommendation. HHS stated that requiring all covered entities with audit findings to provide evidence that their corrective action plans have been successfully implemented would create an undue burden for covered entities. However, HRSA already requires such evidence from covered entities subject to targeted audits, and it is unclear how providing evidence of implementation of corrective actions that entities developed and are required to implement would create significant additional burden for these entities. Additionally, without such evidence HRSA does not have a reasonable assurance that the majority of covered entities audited have corrected the issues identified in the audit, and are not continuing practices that could lead to noncompliance.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Health Resources and Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, HHS indicated that it believes that guidance does not provide HRSA appropriate enforcement capability and that this recommendation can only be accomplished after policy is issued. HRSA has requested regulatory authority for all aspects of the 340B Program in the FY 2021 President's Budget.
GAO-18-400, Jun 14, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: OSC is revising its practice of granting extensions when the agency provides a plausible explanation for the delay. Instead, OSC will be informing agencies at the outset of the referral that, with few exceptions, extension requests are less likely to be granted. OSC will also be communicating that failure to produce an investigative report within the statutory timeframe will result in notification of the agency's failure to the President and congressional committees under 5 U.S. C. 1213(c) (4). According to OSC, this new practice will be reflected in standard operating procedures for the OSC Disclosure Unit that the agency is currently revising.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: OSC has incorporated explicit language in its acknowledgement letters to whistleblowers that investigations may exceed the statutory timeframe. OSC has also now implemented a standard operating procedure of adhering to the 45-day timeframe for making a substantial likelihood determination under 5 U.S.C. 1213(b). According to OSC, it will be revising its acknowledgement letters to whistleblowers to reflect that OSC expects to make a referral determination within 45 days.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: The Special Counsel convened an Effectiveness and Efficiency Working Group tasked with evaluating every unit's case process activities. The group issued recommendations in the spring of 2018, after which the Special Counsel announced a significant reorganization of OSC in the spring of 2018. Specifically, effective October 1, 2018, OSC created a new Intake Unit and merged the headquarters CEU with the Investigations and Prosecution Division (IPD). According to OSC, it continues to develop standard case processes, including procedures for prioritizing cases, obtaining favorable actions, establishing qualitative and quantitative performance expectations, and reviewing cases.
Agency: Office of Special Counsel
Status: Open
Comments: The Clerk of OSC has identified and is implementing the following controls and tools needed to ensure closed case files can be tracked and located efficiently: (1) creation and utilization of file plans according to the OSC disposition scheduled for each unit (including inventory of records); (2) creation of an Archives and Records Centers for Information Sharing (ARCIS) account to manage functions related to OSC's Electronic Records Management System (ERMS), including retiring temporary records to the Federal Records Center (FRC), transmitting and tracking records requests to FRC, and transferring permanent records to the National Archives and Records Administration. According to OSC, the Clerk is further establishing policies and procedures, as well as staff training, for records retention, including but not limited to routine evaluations and assessments. OSC employs FOIA Xpress to locate open and closed cases in response to records requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
GAO-18-421, Jun 5, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: For the second and third recommendations, related to lender's use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices, on June 11, 2019, SBA provided information on 7(a) lender reviews and summary reports. On September 27, 2019, we discussed these recommendations and SBA's responses with an SBA official. Specifically, we discussed the role of statistical sampling in addressing lender practices and SBA's selection of lenders for further review. On November 22, 2019, an SBA official stated that the agency plans to provide additional documentation in six months to further support actions taken. We will continue to monitor SBA's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: For the second and third recommendations, related to lender's use of the credit elsewhere criteria as part of its monitoring of lender practices, on June 11, 2019, SBA provided information on 7(a) lender reviews and summary reports. On September 27, 2019, we discussed these recommendations and SBA's responses with an SBA official. Specifically, we discussed the role of statistical sampling in addressing lender practices and SBA's selection of lenders for further review. On November 22, 2019, an SBA official stated that the agency plans to provide additional documentation in six months to further support actions taken. We will continue to monitor SBA's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-411, Jun 4, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM concurred with this recommendation. However, the Bureau has yet to provide information concerning the current status of this recommendation. We will update the recommendation's status when we receive such information.
GAO-18-370, Jun 1, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open
Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation and, as of November 2019, had updated its internal guidance to include a new section related to schedule reviews. The updated guidance states that the NSF Large Facilities Office will lead analysis of the schedule for each proposed major facilities project, which will include a technical evaluation by the sponsoring office. As further steps to implement this recommendation, NSF planned to develop (1) a new section of the Major Facilities Guide on schedule development, estimating, and analysis and (2) new internal guidance on including project schedules as part of external panels' oversight reviews. NSF anticipated completing these actions by mid-fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor and provide updates on NSF's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-369, May 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-day letter and a subsequent response to report recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it anticipates completing an evaluation of how they calculate SFSP participation by summer 2020. GAO will continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation, including the status of its evaluation and steps taken to improve the agency's estimate of children participating in SFSP. GAO will consider this recommendation closed when FNS provides documentation that it has addressed, at a minimum, data reliability issues in the participation estimate caused by variations in the number of operating days of meal sites and in the months in which states see the greatest number of meals served. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: In late May 2018, the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provided guidance to states regarding changes in policies related to SFSP waivers and demonstration projects and held a webinar to clarify the changes. In March 2019, FNS reported that this guidance and the webinar provided information about participation in the demonstration for exceptional circumstances, which is the means through which FNS had granted states and program providers flexibility for children to consume SFSP meals off-site in areas that had experienced crime and violence. However, the guidance documents do not directly acknowledge that FNS includes areas with crime and violence as exceptional circumstances for purposes of the demonstration, and neither the guidance nor the webinar provided new information about the circumstances FNS considers when granting the flexibility for such areas. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS actions to address this recommendation and consider it closed when the agency communicates the circumstances it considers in approving such requests for flexibility with response to the requirement that children consume SFSP meals on-site in areas that have experienced crime and violence. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) reported that it had drafted the report to Congress to meet its statutory requirement summarizing the use of waivers and demonstration projects. FNS also indicated that the report was being reviewed internally, and planned to submit the final report to Congress following that review. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when FNS submits the final report to Congress. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) submitted its 180-letter and a subsequent response to recommendations in GAO-18-369. In its response, FNS stated that it plans to address streamlining flexibilities that impact the SFSP and other child nutrition programs in a future regulatory action. GAO will therefore continue to monitor FNS's progress with this rule-making and any other actions taken to address this recommendation. FNS plans to provide us with the status of its efforts by the end of FY 2020.
GAO-18-450, May 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, HHS reported that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) would add new additional features to its web-based system for overseeing the mental health protection and advocacy programs, with an implementation target date of October 2020. The agency described one new feature as a tracking tool to monitor program requests to revise priority goals, objectives, and targets over multiple years. In the meantime, SAMHSA has developed a manual tracking tool for its project officers to use until the electronic tool is in place. Another new feature is a workflow that will allow project officers, team leaders, and branch chiefs to review and approve changes made by the programs. However, SAMHSA has not yet provided documentation of the latter feature to demonstrate that it has developed procedures for project officers to review the changes over multiple years. Therefore, the agency lacks assurances that its project officers will consistently examine whether a particular program is regularly making changes to benchmarks that may be indicative of a potential performance problem. We will review the web-based tracking tool when available and continue to monitor SAMHSA's efforts to develop procedures for examining changes to benchmarks over multiple years.
GAO-18-420, May 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: GSA agreed with the recommendation. GSA officials are in the process of developing a tool to estimate the full operations and maintenance costs of design choices during the planning and design, including how those choices will impact areas discussed in our report, e.g., cleaning, energy, and landscaping costs. This tool is scheduled for completion in 2020. Based on a demonstration from GSA, we believe that upon implementation this tool will address our recommendation by allowing officials to better understand the impact of design choices as they are being made. We will follow up with GSA in later in the year to validate that the tool is operational.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. GSA officials are the process of developing a tool that will include the ability to consider building functionality, e.g., purpose or function of the building and spaces, when estimating operations and maintenance costs during planning and design. This tool is scheduled for completion in July 2020. Based on a demonstration from GSA, we believe that upon implementation this tool will address our recommendation by allowing officials to better understand the impact of functional design choices as they are being made. We will follow up with GSA later in the year to validate that the tool is operational.
GAO-18-250, May 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM concurred with this recommendation and, in July 2019, the agency developed a new funding code to track the costs incurred when reclaiming orphaned wells and issued written guidance to state and field offices in order to implement the bureau-wide use of the code. Also in July 2019, BLM officials stated that the agency will expand existing reporting capabilities to provide the ability to track orphaned and inactive well records over time. As of September 2020, we are working to confirm what actions BLM has taken to track the number of orphaned and inactive wells over time, and we will provide updated information when we obtain it.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: BLM officials stated that the agency conducts annual work planning processes which facilitates the decisions regarding the allocation of agency resources. In July 2019, BLM included additional language in its annual work plan that underscores the importance and relevance of well and bond adequacy reviews. The agency also developed a new fund code to track the actual reclamation costs incurred from reclaiming orphaned wells. The annual work plan also lists identifying and cataloging orphaned wells as a performance goal and the plan states that BLM is working with state regulatory agencies to plug wells within funding levels and state agreements. However, as of September 2020, absent identification of funds needed to reclaim orphaned wells and where those funds will come from, BLM does not have a plan to reclaim wells that are currently orphaned.
GAO-18-407, May 14, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Service
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and as of February 2019, stated that it continues to pilot DSS in Transition at cleared facilities and use information gathered from stakeholders, including key government and industry stakeholder organizations to refine the process. On August 12, 2020, DOD stated that DSS was in the process of drafting a Corrective Action Plan. At that time, DOD officials explained that this plan would be completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019. As of September 2020, this plan has not been completed.
GAO-18-401, May 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, two current bills in Congress address this matter. First, the Return Expenses Paid and Yielded Act would amend the Arms Export Control Act to remove an exclusion from the definition of administrative expenses related to military pay and unfunded civilian retirement and other benefits, and would require DOD to review and report to Congress on options for further expanding the use of FMS administrative fees. Second, the Annual Duplication Report Act of 2019 would require DOD to assess and report on (1) any expenses incurred by the U.S. government in operating the FMS program that are not paid for by the administrative fee, (2) their estimated annual cost, (3) the costs and benefits of funding such expenses, and (4) any legislative changes needed to allow the FMS administrative fee to pay for such expenses.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2018, DSCA had planned to update its policy to clarify its process for completing comprehensive reviews of the administrative fee rate to ensure that adequate planning for the next rate review allows it to be completed on time. However, in updating its policy in April 2019, DSCA did not include any clarifications to ensure comprehensive reviews would be completed at least every 5 years or be adequately planned. As of August 2020, DSCA officials indicated they planned to take further action to address this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation. In October 2018, DSCA sent a memo to DCMA and DFAS directing them to resolve the reimbursement issues and to develop a corrective action plan. As of August 2020, DSCA officials estimated this corrective action plan would be implemented by December 2020. . We will continue to monitor implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In its agency response to this report, DSCA partially concurred with this recommendation, noting that although performing a comprehensive review of the CAS fee rate every 5 years is a preferred practice, the agency did not plan to do so for its upcoming fee review due to various factors. In January 2020, DSCA lowered the CAS fee rate based on a rate review completed in 2019, six years after the prior rate review. In addition, in April 2019, DSCA updated related policy but included no clarifications to ensure future comprehensive reviews would be completed at least every 5 years or be adequately planned. As of August 2020, DSCA officials indicated they planned to take further action to address this recommendation by December 2020. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-18-348, May 8, 2018
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted they plan to pilot a staffing tool that will help the Services determine the number of family support providers needed at each installation. The pilot currently includes multiple Services and is expected to last two years. DOD officials also noted that DOD is in the process of standardizing its case management processes for military families with special needs through its family needs assessment form. Among other things, this form is meant to help family support providers address requirements for individualized services plans and gain a better understanding of each family's current needs and goals. In its 2018 annual report to the congressional defense committees, DOD noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requirement to develop and continuously update an individualized services plan for each military family with special needs. However, DOD said OSN may propose legislative changes to this requirement that would require an individualized services plan to be developed and updated only for those families that request services from family support providers. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when the staffing tool is finalized and OSN has assessed each Service's number of family support providers and efforts to develop services plans.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted that each Service submits data for assignment coordination and family support to the EFMP data repository on a quarterly basis. According to DOD officials, in 2018, the data repository was expanded to include a full year of quarterly data for each Service, and OSN is currently developing additional performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support. DOD also noted that it will continue to use the data repository to identify gaps and trends related to assignment coordination and family support, including collecting data from each installation. As of June 2020, we await documentation that OSN has developed performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support and uses them to identify gaps and trends across the Services.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD said the family support component is monitored and evaluated through the each Service's certification process which includes specific standards for the EFMP. In addition, OSN participated in a monitoring site visit to Marine Corps Base Quantico in December 2018 and plans to participate in additional site visits that are coordinated by each Service's certification team. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when DOD implements a process to evaluate the results of each Service's certification process.
GAO-18-393R, May 7, 2018
Phone: (202)512-9377
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. As of September 30, 2019, three of the four operating divisions involved in this recommendation designed and implemented the corrective actions necessary to reasonably assure that IRS effectively resolved and recorded unpostable transactions in a timely manner. In March 2019, one operating division determined that based on the research performed, no actions needed to be taken by the operating division to effectively resolve and record unpostable transactions in a timely manner. We will continue to evaluate IRS's actions to address this recommendation during our audit of IRS's fiscal year 2020 financial statements.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During fiscal year 2019, IRS developed policies in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) for conducting and monitoring the Submission Processing internal control review. Specifically, the IRM addresses the (1) designated roles and responsibilities among IRS business units for ensuring the review questions and associated criteria are assessed and updated to align with internal controls under review; (2) requirements for periodically evaluating the error threshold methodology used in the review; (3) procedures for the review to assess and monitor (a) internal control activities across work shifts and (b) internal control activities for appropriate use and destruction of hard-copy taxpayer information. However, the IRM did not include requirements for reporting findings identified during all components of the internal control review and for assessing and monitoring results of relevant functional level reviews. Since IRS developed the relevant IRM policies and procedures after we had already performed our fiscal year 2019 internal control testing, we will evaluate IRS's implementation of the established procedures during our fiscal year 2020 audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, IRS notified stakeholders of the added procedures to the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) for (1) conducting the Audit Management Checklist reviews, including how frequently the reviews should be completed; (2) developing corrective actions for deficiencies; and (3) tracking the status of the corrective actions until fully implemented. Since IRS provided us the IRM procedures after the end of our fiscal year 2019 audit, we will evaluate IRS's implementation of the established procedures during our fiscal year 2020 audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, IRS notified stakeholders of the added procedures to the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) for conducting the All Events History Report reviews, including developing and monitoring corrective actions for deficiencies until fully implemented. Since IRS provided us the IRM procedures after the end of our fiscal year 2019 audit, we will evaluate IRS's implementation of the established procedures during our fiscal year 2020 audit.
GAO-18-253, Apr 25, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3489
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department concurred with this recommendation. In July 2019, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R) issued a memo that, among other things, directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to (1) direct the Military Departments to comply with reporting of the military personnel data and reporting requirements necessary to support the measurement and reporting of the perstempo of the military forces as laid out in DoDI 1336.07; and (2) develop threshold policies for perstempo events. In addition, it stated that the OUSD/P&R will chair a working group to refine optempo and perstempo policy proposals for inclusion into a formal policy document(s). In November 2019, the OUSD/P&R issued another memo that provided broad perstempo policy and emphasized adherence to modified guidance codified in DODI 1336.07, which as of July 2020 is undergoing DOD directives review for issuance. The OUSD/P&R memo further directed the military departments to provide service-level perstempo guidance, to include thresholds and compliance measures, for their components. We will continue to monitor these actions and update the status of our recommendation as appropriate.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department concurred with this recommendation. In July 2019, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R) issued a memo that, among other things, directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) to develop policies for the accurate measurement and reporting of unit operational deployment data. In addition, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) will (1) conduct department-wide coordination to develop the necessary technical capabilities for DOD to collect, monitor, and evaluate optempo and perstempo data; (2) develop procedures for perstempo and operational deployment data validation to ensure quality checks are conducted regularly and feedback mechanisms to the military departments for error detection and correction are in place, if necessary; and (3) ensure coordination efforts for optempo and perstempo data collection efforts do not duplicate or interfere with current systems collecting such information. In November 2019, the OUSD/P&R issued another memo that provided broad perstempo policy and emphasized adherence to modified guidance codified in DODI 1336.07, which as of July 2020 is undergoing DOD directives review for issuance. This memo and draft instruction provide direction on the reporting of perstempo events and emphasize the collection of complete and reliable perstempo data. Additionally, to enhance data processing and rectify data quality issues, DOD has drafted Uniformed Services Human Resources Information System Procedures, which is also undergoing DoD directives review for official issuance, and DMDC has worked with the services to make specific data improvements. We will continue to monitor for the issuance of the draft DODI and System Procedures and update the status of our recommendation as appropriate.
GAO-18-266, Apr 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted that would authorize other agencies to assume remaining functions from ONHIR. The report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019 directs ONHIR to continue working on the development of a comprehensive plan for closing ONHIR which includes legal analysis on whether any enacting legislation is required to transfer functions to another agency or organization. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted that would address whether the requirement for the land to be used solely for the benefit of relocatees should continue or regulation of grazing on the New Lands. A committee report accompanying ONHIR's fiscal year 2019 appropriations directs ONHIR to work closely with the tribes, the Office of the Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the closure of ONHIR. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted to address the mandatory trust acquisition provision. A committee report accompanying ONHIR's fiscal year 2019 appropriations directs ONHIR to work closely with the tribes, the Office of the Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the closure of ONHIR. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has not yet been enacted to address the mandatory trust acquisition provision. A committee report accompanying ONHIR's fiscal year 2019 appropriations directs ONHIR to work closely with the tribes, the Office of the Special Trustee, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Justice to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the closure of ONHIR. We will continue to monitor any relevant legislation.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: The explanatory statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019 states that the determination that ONHIR's functions have been fully discharged requires development of a comprehensive plan. In October 2018, ONHIR officials stated that they continue to work on transition planning, including helping to develop closeout legislation. We will continue to monitor ONHIR's actions in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, ONHIR officials had developed a schedule of cases that were still eligible to file for federal appeals and reported that the files have been gathered, organized and prepared. Officials also stated that all closed case files that are not subject to an administrative appeal were transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration. We will continue to follow up with ONHIR on the availability of the paper files and the status of efforts to transition its database to another agency upon closure.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, ONHIR officials had produced a report of outstanding warranty complaints, reviewed paper case files for additional information on the status of the complaints, and updated the database accordingly. ONHIR has also developed a report of case files that will need to remain at ONHIR until the warranty period expires. We will continue to follow up to determine how information on contractors' past performance will be maintained.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2018, ONHIR reported that it had updated and maintains a comprehensive inventory that includes property, leases, and surface use agreements on all trust land it administers. Our review of the updated inventory found that not all leases are included, and it is unclear why some properties are listed more than once in the inventory. We will continue to monitor actions ONHIR takes in response to this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2018, ONHIR stated that it is working to record all current leases with the Department of Interior and plans to identify any needed amendments or assignments once a successor entity is identified.
GAO-18-241, Apr 24, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. As of June 15, 2020, DOE has started to take action to implement this recommendation, but actions are not sufficient to close it yet. DOE has directed the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) construction contractor to determine the full extent to which problems exist in all WTP structures, systems, and components and plans to complete full implementation of this recommendation by February 15, 2021.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. As of July 1, 2020, DOE has taken some action to implement this recommendation, but actions are not sufficient to close it yet. To implement this recommendation, DOE strengthened and evaluated the existing Office of River Protection (ORP) Stop Work process to ensure it is sufficiently rigorous. In June 2020, ORP activated this new process. However, ORP has not yet used its authority to stop work in areas in areas where quality assurance problems are recurring.
GAO-18-323, Apr 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: RRB reported taking steps to implement this recommendation. In January 2020, the agency received a cost estimate from SSA for a proposed data exchange. In May 2020, RRB and SSA held an inaugural conference call and reached an understanding of the technical requirements to move forward with a data exchange. As of June 2020, RRB reports that systems analysts at SSA are developing the procedures and systems necessary for an electronic data exchange. GAO will close this recommendation when the data system is implemented.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, RRB reports that it has been working to draft documentation of the financial interchange calculation process, and sharing drafts of this documentation with SSA for its review. SSA has requested revisions in this documentation and RRB plans to hire additional staff to implement GAO's recommendation. GAO will close this recommendation once RRB finalizes its documentation of the financial interchange calculation process.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, RRB reports that it is in the process of developing formal review policies and plans to include them in its written documentation of the financial interchange process. GAO will close this recommendation once RRB's formal review policy is complete.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SSA reported that it received a data exchange request from RRB in October 2018. RRB proposed to send SSA a file of beneficiary and earnings data, and receive calculations for sample financial interchange cases. RRB and SSA discussed options for exchanging information electronically. In early 2020, SSA reported that it is developing a Rough Order of Magnitude/Cost Estimate for electronically sharing data and limiting the reliance of the financial interchange process on manual data entry under its existing agreement. The agency has no timeline to complete this effort.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, SSA reported that it has developed plans to review of a subset of financial interchange calculations as the individual-case level. SSA anticipates that this review will take place following the completion of RRB's fiscal year 2021-2022 financial interchange calculations. We will close this recommendation once SSA's review successfully takes place.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, HHS continues to disagree with this recommendation. HHS officials said that RRB is responsible for certifying its costs through the financial interchange, and that they believe the department lacks the authority to question RRB's calculations. We continue to believe that HHS would be better positioned to ensure that the transfers it makes and receives through the interchange are calculated correctly if it reviews case-level calculations. We will close this recommendation if HHS seeks the authority to review financial interchange calculations or takes other steps to ensure the accuracy of financial interchange calculations performed by RRB.
GAO-18-356, Apr 12, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) partnered with VA's Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) to better understand the current state of patient advocacy services in VHA, focusing on position descriptions, grade levels, and reporting structures. VA medical center staff completed questionnaires about the patient advocacy program in January 2019 and VHA analyzed the results. CHOIR officials are conducting site visits to interview key staff directly to identify the benefits and opportunities for improvements with patient advocacy services, including reporting structure. Upon completion of site visits to validate questionnaire findings, CHOIR will present their final recommendations to OPA. OPA will develop reporting structure guidance and work with workforce management and VHA senior leaders to communicate and implement the guidance. VHA's target completion for these efforts is December 2019.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) partnered with VA's Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) and VHA's Workforce Management to develop an evidence-based patient advocacy staffing model that accounts for facility size, complexity and geographic region. A set of questions was distributed to all VAMCs in December 2018. Responses to these questions have been analyzed by CHOIR, and on-site interviews at select facilities are in progress to validate the report findings. VHA's Workforce Management is working with CHOIR and OPA to use the results to develop a recommended and validated staffing model. This guidance will also be incorporated in the future revision of the VHA directive. The target completion of these efforts is December 2019.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) receives a weekly report from both the Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS) and PATS-Replacement (PATS-R) Systems reporting on the number of new cases entered at every VA medical center (VAMC). With development of the PATS-R web-based tool, OPA, the Veterans Experience Office and the PATS-R developers have conducted a review of existing codes and are currently working with various VHA program offices to standardize codes across various data systems. VA plans to develop an auditing toolkit to ensure standardized, timely documentation of complaints, including accurate coding within PATS. The target completion date for these efforts is December 2019.
GAO-18-301, Mar 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is examining the growing arbitration backlog and investigating steps the Board may take to reduce it. In particular, the agency noted that it is discussing proposals with stakeholders and formulating a plan to reduce the backlog in 2018.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that it has taken significant steps to investigate this matter and has established new controls in order to prevent this type of activity in the future, including establishing a relationship with the IG of the National Labor Relations Board to operate a telephone hotline and email address for the reporting of suspected fraud, waste and abuse at NMB.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that the Board is concerned that the 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey revealed a level of dissatisfaction among NMB employees. It plans to conduct an Internal Climate Assessment in 2018 and agency looks forward to the opportunity to better understand and address any employee concerns.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation. The agency stated that it is in the process of reviewing the current travel policy, and will revise the policy to be in compliance with federal travel regulations as necessary.
Agency: National Mediation Board
Status: Open
Comments: NMB agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will revise its telework policy and strengthen internal controls, as necessary.
GAO-18-318, Mar 8, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: According to officials, NRC plans to provide licensees with access to biweekly reports in the summer 2020, with an enhancement to the eBilling system expected in May 2020 and communicating to licensees about the availability of the information in July 2020. Additionally, NRC developed a form for licensees to request additional information on contractor charges on their bill and notified licensees that they may request additional information on contractor charges by submitting this form to NRC.
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: According to NRC, about 10 percent of licensees are currently participating in eBilling. We requested information on how NRC plans to assess the results of eBilling. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-18-287, Feb 21, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, no legislation has been enacted resulting from this matter to Congress. RRB's (the Board) fiscal year 2020 budget proposal included a legislative proposal to provide the Board access to the NDNH. Although the Board reported that the resulting proposed legislation drafted by HHS - the entity that maintains the NDNH - would, if enacted, provide access to the NDNH, the Board opposed the proposal in part because it would not waive associated fees to access the NDNH, and concluded access to the NDNH would not be cost-effective. In January 2020, the Board informed GAO it is not currently seeking legislation to gain access to the NDNH, resulting in the Board continuing to use earnings data that may be outdated in its continuing disability reviews, but that it may seek access in the future.
Agency: Railroad Retirement Board
Status: Open
Comments: RRB agreed with this recommendation. In June 2020, RRB reported that its Program Evaluation and Management Services (PEMS) section will compile and analyze all relevant CDR program case and cost data to better oversee CDRs. RRB said that its first analysis would cover CDR's adjudicated from April 2019 through September 2020; as of June 2020 they had adjudicated 107 CDR cases. In addition, RRB reported that its monthly reporting on CDRs to the Director of Disability includes information on the type of CDR completed, the medical improvement category for medical CDR, and the disposition of the CDR. In August 2018, the agency had reported that it began reporting in October 2017 weekly pending CDR type action cases to the Director of Programs, and that it had begun tracking CDR reason codes for each medical improvement category. To close this recommendation, RRB will need to include an analysis of the costs and benefits of conducting CDRs, including any overpayments or underpayments processed, and share its complete analysis of CDRs through September 2020 after it is completed. At that point GAO will review the analysis and decide if it provides a sufficient bases for program oversight.
GAO-18-203, Feb 2, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that Executive Office for United States Attorneys developed a core set of performance measures for evaluating collection activities. Further, DOJ officials reported that DOJ was in the process of developing an analytical tool to allow DOJ and U.S. Attorneys Offices' (USAOs) to assess USAO restitution collection efforts and results based on relevant factors. In November 2019, DOJ officials reported that DOJ had begun piloting the analytical tool and expected that it would be fully implemented by July 2020. However, in July 2020, DOJ officials reported that the technical challenges they encountered, as well as the impacts to government operations as a result of the 2019 COVID pandemic, have directly impacted their operations and resulted in delays. While DOJ's initial completion time frame was scheduled for October 2020, the challenges they have encountered have resulted in the timeline for implementation now expected to take place during the first quarter of FY 2021. We will continue to monitor DOJ's progress and time frames for implementation.
GAO-18-207, Jan 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SBA agreed with the recommendation. As of January 2020, SBA officials said they plan to continue working with participating agencies to determine a feasible way to implement the Commercialization Benchmark. According to SBA officials, SBA is leading an interagency Commercialization Working Group with participating agency officials and has implemented a commercialization reporting tool on the SBIR.gov site. Agency officials participating in the interagency working group have identified challenges with a single model for the benchmark and are working to resolve the issues.
GAO-18-56, Jan 31, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9869
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Forest Service generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its financial policies concerning budget execution have been revised to address our concerns with allotments, unliquidated obligations, commitments, and administrative control of funds as prescribed by OMB Circular A-11. Further, the Forest Service stated that it has undertaken an in-depth review of its unliquidated obligations and modified the certification process to comply with the USDA requirement. However, the Forest Service has not yet provided support for the review and approval of the administrative control of funds by USDA and OMB. GAO will continue to follow up on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Forest Service generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that it has made significant progress to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Forest Service stated that its financial policies concerning budget execution have been revised to address allotments, unliquidated obligations, commitments, and administrative control of funds as prescribed by OMB Circular A-11. Further, the Forest Service stated that it has undertaken an in-depth review of its unliquidated obligations and modified the certification process to comply with the USDA requirement. However, as of August 2020, the Forest Service has not provided support for the training provided to implement the revised procedures. GAO will continue to follow up on the status of this recommendation.
GAO-18-224, Jan 30, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, IRS continues to disagree with this recommendation. IRS stated that it does not have all the information required for calculating and sending late penalty notifications prior to the beginning of the next filing season. However, in its response, IRS did not consider other options that could be available prior to finalizing penalty calculations, such as communicating with the employers earlier in the process. As noted in our report, quickly responding to employers that filed late increases the potential for compliance, thereby increasing the availability of W-2 data for systemic verification to detect and prevent fraud and noncompliance. We continue to believe that assessing the options for improving enforcement of late W-2 filing penalties, such as through earlier communication, would help IRS identify potential opportunities to encourage compliance with the W-2 filing deadline and verify more wage information before releasing refunds. We will continue to discuss options with IRS regarding this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has assessed the benefits of modifying the refund hold, but it has not assessed the costs, as GAO recommended in January 2018. In November 2018, IRS provided its assessment of the February 15 refund hold. In it, IRS reiterated its findings regarding the benefits of the refund hold. These benefits included potential savings if IRS modified the hold to include all taxpayers, extended the hold to a later date when more W-2 data are available, or made both changes. However, IRS did not include any assessment of costs to achieve these potential savings, such as the costs for IRS to review any additional returns that would be identified under a modified refund hold. It did not assess taxpayer burden, either. IRS also did not determine how the February 15 refund hold informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and its fraud risk management strategy. In January 2019, IRS took actions to hold more returns beyond the February 15 refund hold date using a risk-based selection method. Nevertheless, without a complete assessment of the benefits and costs, including taxpayer burden, IRS is making a decision based upon incomplete information. Further, if Congress or Treasury considered making any changes, they too would have incomplete information on which to direct IRS's actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has taken actions consistent with our recommendations by modifying its filters to hold more returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) beyond the February 15 refund hold date based on a risk-based selection method. In addition, in May 2019, IRS officials told us they are making similar changes for the 2020 filing season to hold more high-risk returns not claiming EITC or ACTC until W-2 data are available. This action, if taken, would be consistent with our recommendations. In 2018, IRS assessed the benefits of modifying the refund hold, however, it did not assess or document the costs, including taxpayer burden, or determine how the February 15 refund hold informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and its fraud risk management strategy. Completing these actions, along with the planned modifications, would fully address our recommendations, which would enable IRS to make decisions based on completed information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, IRS provided results for a pilot encouraging voluntary compliance through expanded systemic verification using W-2 data. In the pilot, IRS sent soft notices to a targeted group of taxpayers whose returns under-reported income compared to W-2 data. In its analysis, IRS reported that some taxpayers voluntarily amended their returns after receiving the soft notice, resulting in a net increase in tax revenue. If IRS determines that the benefits outweigh the costs of adopting this practice based on the pilot results, or assesses additional options to address other fraud and noncompliance before issuing refunds, it would satisfy our recommendation. We will continue to follow IRS's progress on the pilot and its results.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019, IRS provided an evaluation of a pilot it conducted during tax year 2019. In the pilot, IRS sent soft notices to a targeted group of taxpayers whose returns under-reported income compared to W-2 data. In its analysis, IRS reported that some taxpayers voluntarily amended their returns after receiving the soft notice, resulting in a net increase in tax revenue. IRS told us they intend to continue the pilot during tax year 2020. We will continue to follow IRS's progress on the pilot and its results.
GAO-18-150, Jan 25, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that PIH was continuing its workforce planning efforts, including assessing the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to implement the MTW expansion.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they had drafted written protocols for assessing compliance with the five demonstration requirements that would be finalized by May 2019.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they were still determining the most cost effective way to track MTW demonstration funds being used for local, nontraditional activities.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that HUD planned to add fields for capturing data on households served through local, nontraditional activities to the next generation of PIC for expansion MTW agencies, which would be implemented in the summer of 2020. Officials said HUD is currently in the process of determining how the next generation of PIC will be rolled out for existing MTW agencies.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to monitor existing MTW agencies' Housing Choice Voucher reserves by revising their annual reporting requirements to require them to report their plans for and use of reserves.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that PIH would clarify the definition of rent reform for existing MTW agencies in a document responding to frequently asked questions on the annual reporting requirements and for expansion agencies in the operations notice that it was finalizing for the expansion of the MTW program.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to provide a range of suggested options for defining self-sufficiency in a document responding to frequently asked questions about the annual reporting requirements for MTW agencies.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to make it clear which elements are required in impact analyses, annual reevaluations, and hardship policies in the operations notice HUD was finalizing for the expansion of the MTW program. Further, HUD officials stated that the 2016 Appropriations Act that extended the standard agreement for the existing 39 MTW agencies limits HUD's ability to revise its guidance for these agencies to make it clear which elements are required in impact analyses, annual reevaluations, and hardship policies and the information required for each element. However, they stated that guidance related to the hardship policy and annual reevaluations has been updated to include more specific parameters for what an agency must submit to HUD. As we stated in our report, this guidance is set forth outside the standard agreement, which HUD already has revised without changes to the standard agreement. Therefore, we continue to believe that HUD could revise its guidance for the existing agencies to clarify which elements are required for these documents and the information each element should include.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they had updated their most recent annual reporting requirements for MTW agencies to require a hardship policy for public housing time limits and that they were working on finalizing guidance to existing MTW agencies encouraging an impact analysis, annual reevaluation, and hardship policy for work-requirement and time-limit policies for public housing and voucher programs.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that the operations notice they were finalizing for the expansion of the MTW program would require an impact analysis, annual reevaluation, and hardship policy for work-requirement and time-limit policies new MTW agencies adopt for their public housing and voucher programs.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In February 2020, HUD officials stated that they planned to develop separate analysis plans for existing and expansion MTW agencies due to differences in the types of performance information HUD can require them to report under their MTW agreements.
GAO-18-220, Jan 19, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation. In November 2019, HHS reported that it was applying limited evaluation requirements to certain demonstration types, including routine family planning demonstrations. In July 2020, CMS stated that it continues to work with states as they apply for new or extensions of approved demonstrations to determine whether the demonstrations as a whole or certain components would qualify for limited evaluation. The agency, however, reiterated that it needs more experience before developing generalized guidance and that was not a priority for 2020. We will continue to monitor CMS's progress and will review whether to close the recommendation when these criteria are issued.
GAO-18-57, Jan 16, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020 Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that FAA had not yet finished reexamining the current maximum probable loss (MPL) probability thresholds or completed a subsequent rulemaking to address the probability thresholds. The officials also stated that FAA's focus for the prior two years has been on streamlining the launch and reentry license regulations (SLR2) rulemaking in response to the President's Space Policy Directive 2, which contains the National Space Council's recommendations for commercial space regulatory reform. According to the officials, this effort will continue through 2020, and that after it is completed, FAA will evaluate whether to begin a new rulemaking to address MPL analyses.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that FAA had not yet finished reexamining the current maximum probable loss (MPL) probability thresholds or completed a subsequent rulemaking to address the probability thresholds. The officials also stated that FAA's focus for the prior two years has been on streamlining the launch and reentry license regulations (SLR2) rulemaking in response to the President's Space Policy Directive 2, which contains the National Space Council's recommendations for commercial space regulatory reform. According to the officials, this effort will continue through 2020, and that after it is completed, FAA will evaluate whether to begin a new rulemaking to address MPL analyses.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that FAA had not yet finished reexamining the current maximum probable loss (MPL) probability thresholds or completed a subsequent rulemaking to address the probability thresholds. The officials also stated that FAA's focus for the prior two years has been on streamlining the launch and reentry license regulations (SLR2) rulemaking in response to the President's Space Policy Directive 2, which contains the National Space Council's recommendations for commercial space regulatory reform. According to the officials, this effort will continue through 2020, and that after it is completed, FAA will evaluate whether to begin a new rulemaking to address MPL analyses.
Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2020, Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that FAA had not yet finished reexamining the current maximum probable loss (MPL) probability thresholds or completed a subsequent rulemaking to address the probability thresholds. The officials also stated that FAA's focus for the prior two years has been on streamlining the launch and reentry license regulations (SLR2) rulemaking in response to the President's Space Policy Directive 2, which contains the National Space Council's recommendations for commercial space regulatory reform. According to the officials, this effort will continue through 2020, and that after it is completed, FAA will evaluate whether to begin a new rulemaking to address MPL analyses.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Shortly after the issuance of the report, VA notified GAO that it was in the process of working with the lnteragency Security Committee (ISC) to update its vulnerability assessment program, with a target completion date of January 2019. Despite multiple attempts, as of June 2020, VA has not provided any information on its progress in updating its program.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: Shortly after the issuance of the report, VA notified GAO that it had identified OS&LE as the internal entity responsible for conducting a complete review of VA's current risk management policies and processes for VA facilities and that it was reviewing an ISC-certified risk assessment tool for possible implementation consideration. Despite multiple attempts, as of June 2020, VA had not provided an update on its efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-18-214, Jan 10, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: CBP agreed with our recommendation and said they would complete their corrective actions by April 30, 2020. To fully implement it, CBP should develop a monitoring system that observes agency verification of licenses for imported radiological materials to ensure CBP officials are complying with existing policies and procedures.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: CBP agreed with our recommendation and said they would complete their corrective actions by April 30, 2020. To fully implement it, CBP should develop a system to better identify which shipments of radiological material pose the greatest risk and revise their policies and procedures for verification of the licenses for these shipments accordingly.
GAO-18-140, Dec 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, FDA reported on efforts to increase device staff knowledge of least burdensome requirements and the implementation of a "least burdensome flag," which allows the submitter to flag a submission for FDA if it believes that the agency's request is not the least burdensome or that it was being held to an inappropriate review standard. In August 2020, FDA described its analysis of the flags, including the number of times it was used and the time it took to resolve them relative to FDA's goal. FDA indicated that it will continue to monitor the usage of the flag program to identify signals or trends that should be addressed. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-18-70, Dec 8, 2017
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: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, CMS has taken steps to improve T-MSIS data quality, but further efforts are needed to expedite the data's use in oversight. With regard to obtaining complete information from all states, CMS released additional guidance in March 2019, on state compliance with T-MSIS requirements. This guidance includes the need to resolve data issues associated with 12 top priority items and missing data elements, both of which are key for using T-MSIS data. Further, CMS identified an additional 11 top priority items, noting it also expected states to resolve data issues with these items. CMS reports that it has helped resolve data issues related to these 23 top priority items by sending states summary data on compliance with associated reporting requirements. CMS has notified states of their compliance status and asked non-compliant states to submit corrective action plans. However, CMS reports that the level of states' T-MSIS data completeness varies and agency state liaisons and technical assistants continue to work individually with states to identify, prioritize, and resolve key missing data elements. With regard to identifying and sharing information, CMS has made some T-MSIS data available for use through five T-MSIS analytical files, which include data on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment, demographics, service utilization, and payments. Further, CMS has created resources to support researchers in their use of these analytical files, including information on the completeness and accuracy of certain data elements. With regard to implementing mechanisms for collaboration across states, additional CMS action is needed. In particular, CMS's efforts to create a mechanism for states to disseminate information about T-MSIS data and its comparability across states remain limited and the agency has not launched its proposed Learning Collaborative to facilitate ongoing feedback and collaboration. While progress has been made, additional actions, such as establishing mechanisms for ongoing feedback and collaboration across states, are needed to consider this recommendation implemented.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, CMS has taken steps to articulate guidance to states, but has not outlined a specific plan and associated time frames for using T-MSIS data for oversight. Until CMS takes these actions, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-18-131, Dec 7, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, FERC is in the process of taking steps to address this recommendation.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, FERC is in the process of taking steps to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-20, Nov 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS transitioned the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) from a pilot to full implementation in October 2018. As of June 2020, we have requested documentation from IRS related to this transition to determine if it is consistent with the recommendation to align with leading practices. We will continue to monitor ISAC activities.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The ISAC annual report released in April 2018 cites plans to continue to grow member participation from private sector and other government agencies and to provide opportunities to deepen members' participation with clear guidelines. As of June 2020, we have requested additional information about participation levels and ongoing outreach efforts. Developing an outreach plan to broaden membership to non-Security Summit members of industry and financial institutions would further promote stakeholders collaborating and sharing fraud information.
GAO-18-117, Nov 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI has provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating that information and will update this recommendation once that evaluation is complete.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating this information and once that evaluation is complete, we will update the status.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI stated that with the advent of Trusted Workforce 2.0, discussions are being held about timeliness goals and the periodic reinvestigation model writ large. Once we confirm what actions have been taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: ODNI generally concurred with this recommendation. As of November 2019, ODNI provided information that may allow us to close this recommendation. We are currently evaluating that information and once that evaluation is complete, we will update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-18-63, Nov 15, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with the recommendation and indicated plans to revise policy to codify requirements to document reviews. As of April 2020, VA estimates completing these and other revisions to the policy in August 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with the recommendation and indicated plans to revise policy to incorporate timeline expectations for initiating reviews after clinical care concerns have been raised. As of April 2020, VA estimates completing these and other revisions to the policy in August 2020.
GAO-18-30, Nov 8, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Office of Response and Recovery: Assistant Administrator for Recovery
Status: Open
Comments: FEMA concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of September 2018, officials reported completing activities to develop disaster-specific mitigation performance measures that align with strategic goals and analyzed available data to identify the drivers of mitigation in events of various sizes. Due to hiring delays associated with the establishment of the 406 Mitigation Branch, officials have extended the expected completion date for all actions, including proposing refined performance measures to FEMA senior leadership, to the end of January 2019. As of December 2019, GAO is awaiting a response from FEMA on their progress completing these actions.
GAO-18-118, Nov 6, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors reported to us that it was developing its ERM framework. The Board added that it was establishing a Board Risk Committee (comprised of senior leaders) to oversee its ERM program and serve as the central forum for addressing Board-wide risk issues. The Board also said that it has begun to implement a number of strategic components of the ERM framework. In August 2019, the Board stated that in their view, the ERM framework they are developing would not significantly alter the management processes that the Board and System have in place under the LISCC program that continue to work effectively. The Board reported to us that it has continued to develop the ERM program with guidance of the Board Risk Committee, which meets quarterly, and continues to serve as the central forum for Board-wide risk issues and oversight of the ERM program. In August 2020, the Board added that it would take several years to develop the ERM program. The Board also will continue to implement strategic components of the ERM framework throughout the Board.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2019 update. In August 2019, the Board of Governors told us that the LISCC supervisory program had taken several steps to "finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies." The Board reported that in 2017 it had issued a near-final LISCC program manual, which they said will memorialize all aspects of the LISCC supervisory program. The Board added the updated manual will reflect the results of a self-assessment of the LISCC Program's first full year of operations under the LISCC core program model, and the initial implementation of the new Large Financial Institution Ratings Framework. The Board also said that, since the last update, the LISCC supervisory program's operating policies, procedures, and templates for the conduct of supervisory activities have been completed and implemented.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they were assessing the feasibility of integrating existing electronic systems. They added that they have drafted guidance that develops a LISCC-specific conflicts of interest and examiner credential program that will seek to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of conflicts of interest rules for all staff, both at the Board and the Reserve Banks, that participate in the LISCC supervisory program. They said that the Board plans to issue this guidance and begin implementation of a more consistent and centralized disclosure review approach in 2018. In addition, they said that they have begun collecting and storing conflicts of interest disclosure information for all LISCC participants, including Board LISCC staff, in one electronic system. They added that they have provided initial training to Board LISCC staff on the disclosure review process and the electronic system to ensure consistent collection of conflicts of interest data for all LISCC participants.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they had implemented policies intended to mitigate the risk that an employee may be influenced by prior employment or the prospect of future employment and place their private interests ahead of the organization's supervisory mission. As an example, they said that recently the Federal Reserve broadened the scope of post-employment restrictions applicable to senior examiners. They added that the Board has begun to develop a more systematic approach to collect and monitor pre- and post-employment data through the use of an electronic system. They said that this updated electronic system is scheduled to be released, for both Board and Reserve Banks use, in 2019.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that their Ethics program staff and Supervision & Regulation staff are jointly assessing the current ethics programs, policies, and procedures applicable to LISCC program participants. The Federal Reserve expects to finalize and implement new conflicts of interest policies and procedures applicable to LISCC participants in 2019.
GAO-18-13, Oct 27, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would add new measures in future Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and explain what is measured and what is not, as appropriate. In May 2020, the Coast Guard provided GAO with its updated fiscal year 2019 APR. After reviewing the fiscal year 2019 APR, we found that the Coast Guard made revisions to the goals for the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) and Marine Environmental Protection-prevention activities (MEP) missions and added a goal for the Search and Rescue mission. However, the APR did not include additional goals or an explanation why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not for the other performance goals we previously identified as not fully addressing all related mission activities. In its July 2020 update to this recommendation, the Coast Guard reported that the metrics published in the APR are measures of Coast Guard performance and not performance goals. The Coast Guard also noted that it continually evaluates the utility of its performance measures, and makes changes to individual measures, as well as its suite of measures, when doing so provides meaningful improvement. In its July 2020 update, the Coast Guard added that targets established for performance measures are intended to be realistic expectations of future performance and targets are continually evaluated and changed when current performance modify expectations. However, we continue to believe that in the absence of documentation explaining how existing performance goals address each mission, the extent to which the Coast Guard's performance goals encompass all of its mission activities is unclear. Either developing new goals to address mission activity gaps, or describing in the APR how existing goals sufficiently assess the performance of each mission could provide more meaningful information on progress in achieving Coast Guard's missions to executive branch decision makers, Congress, and the public. In order to fully implement the recommendation as intended, in instances in which performance goals do not fully address all of the respective mission activities, the Coast Guard's APR should include an explanation of the Coast Guard's rationale for why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. We will continue to follow-up on the Coast Guard's efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-18-72, Oct 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued an updated Physical Security Policy and Procedures Handbook in January 2020, which includes a series of internal controls and physical security performance measures. We have reviewed the handbook and requested additional information from CBP to determine whether it meets ISC's Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed, initially tested, and deployed a risk assessment methodology that aligns with the Interagency Security Committee Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities. In August and September of 2019, FAA trained some staff on the new methodology, which is being integrated into the facility security reporting system. After resolving any software compatibility issues, completing all necessary testing and training, and issuing the associated security policy, FAA expects to fully implement the methodology by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drafted an updated facility security policy and distributed it for comment in October 2019. It received over 300 comments that are currently being addressed. Once completed, the policy is to incorporate a methodology that fully aligns with the Interagency Security Committee Risk Management Process for Federal Facilities for assessing all undesirable events, considering all three factors of risk, and documenting all deviations from the standard countermeasures. FAA plans to publish the new policy to coincide with the implementation of its risk-assessment methodology by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) update of its facility security policy and its associated databases should help to improve the monitoring and use of physical security information to better assist with risk assessment decision-making. In February 2020, FAA officials said that its facility security reporting system is to be improved with new metrics and executive level reporting. Such improvements are to result in increased program oversight, risk awareness, and mitigation planning. These improvements are to be completed by December 31, 2020 to coincide with full implementation of the components of the risk management framework, such as the risk assessment methodology, personnel training, and policy publication.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is drafting a revised physical-security regulation and manual that is to align with risk management processes, including a tracking and monitoring component. It expects to implement a revised process by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the need to develop and implement a database to track and monitor physical security assessment schedules across all of its components. As a result, USDA plans to request funding in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2021 to design and build such a database. If sufficient funding is secured and development efforts go as planned, the agency anticipates having the database operational by the end of 2021.
GAO-18-145, Oct 19, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6412
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Status: Open
Comments: CDC agreed with this October 2017 recommendation and, as of January 2020, CDC and APHIS were in the process of finalizing a joint workforce assessment focusing primarily on inspections, according to officials from the Select Agent Program. However, this joint assessment does not account for other aspects of the program, such as training, which was part of GAO's recommendation. According to Select Agent Program officials, the program is developing a new information system and officials plan to conduct a follow-up workload assessment once this new system is fully implemented, as they anticipate that the program will gain efficiencies once this new system is in place. Officials from the Select Agent Program said they did not have a definitive timeframe as to when the new system would be in place and a new workload assessment could be completed but, as of December 2019, they said it would be several years. Once the updated workforce assessment is completed, GAO will review it to determine if it fulfills the recommendation. Developing a joint workforce plan as recommended would help the program to better manage fragmentation by improving how it leverages resources, which in turn would help to ensure that all workforce and training needs are met.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Status: Open
Comments: APHIS agreed with this October 2017 recommendation and, as of January 2020, CDC and APHIS were in the process of finalizing a joint workforce assessment focusing primarily on inspections, according to officials from the Select Agent Program. However, this joint assessment does not account for other aspects of the program, such as training, which was part of GAO's recommendation. According to Select Agent Program officials, the program is developing a new information system and officials plan to conduct a follow-up workload assessment once this new system is fully implemented, as they anticipate that the program will gain efficiencies once this new system is in place. Officials from the Select Agent Program said they did not have a definitive timeframe as to when the new system would be in place and a new workload assessment could be completed but, as of December 2019, they said it would be several years. Once the updated workforce assessment is completed, GAO will review it to determine if it fulfills the recommendation. Developing a joint workforce plan as recommended would help the program to better manage fragmentation by improving how it leverages resources, which in turn would help to ensure that all workforce and training needs are met.
GAO-18-8, Oct 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Justice: United States Marshals Service
Status: Open
Comments: USMS concurred with this recommendation and said that it is taking steps to implement it. In August 2018, USMS began providing feedback reports to employees completing the redesigned competency assessment process, which include detailed breakouts of scores by competency. However, these reports do not contain specific feedback, including the employee's readiness for promotion. As of June 2019, USMS is finalizing plans to provide training to employees on the GS-13 and GS-14 competencies. As of August 2020, USMS is building development programs and computer-based courses for each grade level, including GS-13 and GS-14. To fully address this recommendation, USMS should provide information on efforts or plans to provide specific feedback to employees, including on their readiness for promotion, and provide final training plans.
GAO-18-15, Oct 6, 2017
Phone: 2025127114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided information on actions taken to implement it. We will update its status when we receive additional information.
GAO-17-506, Sep 29, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open
Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation and stated in July 2020 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it.
GAO-17-775, Sep 29, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for implementing some of the federal program inventory requirements. In that guidance, OMB states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to leverage federal spending data reported on USASpending.gov as required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. Those data can be presented at the program activity level, and therefore could meet the inventory requirements to present program-level spending data. However, OMB's guidance does not yet present any time frames or milestones for meeting other inventory requirements, such as describing the purpose of each program or how it contributes to the agency's mission and goals. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB states that it and agencies will meet some of the federal inventory requirements by leveraging the spending data reported on USASpending.gov. The guidance notes that this information is provided in a structured information architecture format on USASpending.gov. In July 2019, OMB staff told us that they considered an information architecture approach in response to our past reports on the topic. However, OMB has not yet clarified in guidance or elsewhere how the information architecture format of USASpending.gov-which is currently focused on spending data-could be used to meet additional information reporting requirements and our past recommendations related to the inventory. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. OMB and the PIC, in guidance provided through Circular No. A-11 and the Goal Playbook respectively, have encouraged agencies to expand their use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals. In March 2019, OMB staff told us that they would work with the PIC to provide agencies with case studies and other resources that could help expand their use of data-driven reviews, should agencies choose to do so. However, as of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have not yet identified and shared practices related to expanding the use of those reviews as we recommended. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-738, Sep 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services agreed with the recommendation and has developed a template and instructions for quarterly reporting from its divisions. The Department identified some performance measures that it will monitor on a quarterly basis, such as contracts closed on time and total backlog. Due to competing priorities and focus on the COVID-19 response, the Department plans to provide additional steps toward progress at the next reporting cycle.
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice agreed with the recommendation and in early fiscal year 2020 enhanced its financial management system to allow the Bureaus to assess whether a contract needs to be closed out. The Department anticipates that the associated guidance, which includes performance measures, will be issued in late summer 2020.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State agreed with the recommendation and is upgrading its system to improve data quality and enable the tracking and sharing of contract closeout information. The enhancements to the contracting system would allow the Department to establish a baseline and develop metrics to measure progress on closing contracts. The Department anticipates that the upgrades and data utilization will continue into fiscal year 2021.
GAO-17-799, Sep 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9869
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS stated that it remains committed to its financial system modernization program and agrees that effective processes and guidance are necessary to assure best practices. In September 2020, DHS officials informed us that they did not have any updates to report on efforts to address this recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with DHS on actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS stated that it is committed to its financial system modernization program and agrees that effective processes and guidance are necessary to assure best practices. In September 2019, DHS provided documentation that cross walked DHS' Risk Management Training Aide to the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for acquisition risk management best practices. However, the optional nature of the language used in the Training Aide does not reasonably assure that program offices will follow the suggested guidance. Also, the Training Aide does not specifically require the linking of thresholds to cost, schedule, and performance elements of identified risks. Based on our review of the information provided, DHS's corrective actions were not sufficient for addressing the intent of our recommendation. We will continue to evaluate DHS actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-748, Sep 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation. In October 2019, VHA issued an interim policy on program office memos (also known as "operational memos") that described how these guidance documents should be vetted and recertified. For example, operational memos issued after VHA's new interim policy will expire 2 years after publication if no further action is taken. In November 2019, VHA further clarified in another interim policy the purpose of all national policy and guidance documents, including the purpose and audience for each document type. Because VHA interim policy, by definition, is automatically rescinded after 1 year unless incorporated into a national policy directive, VHA needs to provide us with the finalized version of its recertified national policy directive in order to fully implement this recommendation. The recertified national policy directive should include the framework outlined in its interim policy documents.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation. VHA reported that it added a program office memo (also known as "operational memo") section to its internal publications website in November 2017. Uploading operational memos to this website allowed VHA to identify 327 outdated documents that it has since rescinded, as well as numerous other documents that may require rescission. In October 2019, VHA issued an interim policy requiring all operational memos to be maintained on its publications website. Because interim policy is automatically rescinded after 1 year, VHA needs to provide us with the finalized version of its recertified national policy directive that includes the process it established to maintain these documents. In addition, VHA has not provided documentation of how it will disseminate operational memos so that VHA program offices, VISNs, and VAMCs are aware of new or rescinded guidance.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation. In June 2018, VHA reported that it had formed a Field Advisory Workgroup to provide continuing advice on national policy. VHA reported its findings and recommendations from the first workgroup meeting in December 2017 to senior leadership, and held another series of interviews in Summer 2018 to gain additional feedback about how national policy changes affect local facilities. In November 2019, VHA noted that it is developing a standardized process for collecting feedback from the field on published policies. To fully implement this recommendation, VHA should provide documentation of the mechanism by which program offices systematically obtain feedback from VISNs and VAMCs on national policy after implementation and how it will take the appropriate actions.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation. In October 2018, VHA reported that it had collected information on the waiver procedures and areas of improvement that exist at both the national and local levels. Based on this information, VHA's Waiver Workgroup was finalizing its recommendations for implementing a formal waiver process. As of November 2019, VHA had not yet reached a decision on how to proceed. To fully implement this recommendation, VHA should provide us with documentation of a process that standardizes policy exemptions waivers, including tracking and monitoring those that are approved.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Comments: VA agreed with our recommendation. In June 2018, VHA reported that it had identified approximately 55,000 local policies and included them in a SharePoint database, which will serve as a baseline for removing redundant or conflicting local policy. In November 2019, VHA issued an interim policy that established business rules for oversight and monitoring local policy development at the VISN and VAMC levels. Specifically, VHA will assess the number of local policies every 6 months as well as identify patterns of non-compliance. In addition, the interim policy includes standardized templates, a recertification requirement of 5 years to mirror the national policy requirement, and restricts VHA program offices from creating requirements for local policy development. VHA also established resources for the new interim policy, such as a list of local policies as required by national policy. Because VHA interim policy, by definition, is automatically rescinded after 1 year unless incorporated into a national policy directive, VHA needs to provide us with the finalized version of its recertified national policy directive in order to fully implement this recommendation.
GAO-17-727, Sep 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: In 2018, FCC included quantifiable goals and related measures for its enforcement program in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Plan, which is included in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Estimate to Congress. FCC plans to publish the results in its Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Report. FCC expects to release this report in March 2020.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2019, FCC has yet to take action on this recommendation.
GAO-17-725, Sep 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Rural Housing Service
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, RHS said that implementing the recommendation would require information technology funding.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Rural Housing Service
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, RHS said that implementing the recommendation would require information technology funding.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Rural Housing Service
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, RHS said it would incorporate the recommended controls into the fiscal year 2021 budget cycle.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Rural Housing Service
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, RHS said it was working toward providing the recommended guidance to Rural Development state offices.
GAO-17-482, Aug 31, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In July 2018, DOD officials told us that they planned to fully implement this recommendation in the revised instruction once it was issued. In January 2020, DOD issued an updated instruction that, among other things, revised elements of the management structure. We plan to begin work later in 2020 that will assess whether the changes reflected in the January 2020 instruction address the issues we identified.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In July 2018, DOD officials told us that they planned to fully implement this recommendation in the revised instruction once it was issued. In January 2020, DOD issued an updated instruction that, among other things, revised elements of the Services Requirements Review Board process. We plan to begin work later in 2020 that will assess whether the changes reflected in the January 2020 instruction address the issues we identified.
GAO-17-675, Aug 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
Status: Open
Comments: For section 15(k)(2), related to the compensation and seniority of the person heading the OSDBU office, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation. Agency officials stated that the agency requested that DOD seek Congressional approval to authorize a new Senior Executive Service position for the OSDBU director, and the agency has been waiting for this authorization to make this change. An agency official said that DLA recently hired a new Office of Small Business Programs director at the GS-15 equivalent level. This hire is not consistent with the requirements of section 15(k)(2). We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation. For section 15(k)(7), related to supervisory duties, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation. An agency official said that the management structure of DLA and its subordinate elements precludes assigning supervisory authority by the DLA OSBP over all agency personnel involved in small business functions. The official said that DOD OSDP is working to submit legislative proposals for the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. These proposals may address DLA's compliance with section 15(k)(7). For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on insourcing, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation and said that future insourcing actions will be coordinated with the DLA OSBP as required. The agency official said that as of August 10, 2018, there have not been any insourcing actions. DOD provided a memo documenting that a future update of DOD policy will include language about complying with section 15(k)(11) requirement. The information provided is sufficient to close this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(17), related to responding to undue restrictions on the ability of small businesses to compete, DOD concurred with this part of the recommendation. DOD provided a memo that includes information on how the agency will comply with the section 15(k)(17) requirements and that these procedures will be included in a future DOD policy update. The information provided is sufficient to close this part of the recommendation as implemented.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: For section 15(k)(2), related to the compensation and seniority of the person heading the OSDBU office, and for section 15(k)(15), related to collateral duties, on September 13, 2018, an agency official stated that the agency currently does not have an OSDBU director. The official stated that the agency does not have an estimate for when this would occur because the director is appointed by the White House. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(17), related to undue restriction on the ability of small businesses to compete, an agency official stated that the OSDBU is working on an internal policy which will include guidelines for action. The official stated that the estimated completion date is January 2019. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: For section 15(k)(5), related to identifying and addressing bundling of contract requirements, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation because it said that no contracting or bundling occurs at the level of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because if DOD believes that the situation of this office supports that it is in compliance with section 15(k)(5), the agency should report to Congress on how it believes it is in compliance, and seek any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(8), related to assigning small business technical advisors, DOD did not concur with this part of the recommendation because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this part of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: For section 15(k)(3), related to reporting to the agency head or deputy head, an agency official stated that a deputy secretary was confirmed in May 2018 but that the previous OSDBU director was no longer with the agency and a new director would be appointed to the OSDBU director position. The agency official also said that once a new OSDBU director is assigned, the deputy secretary will provide oversight to the OSDBU director including signing the director's performance appraisal. We will continue to monitor the Department of Education's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on insourcing, on July 20, 2018, an agency official provided guidance on insourcing which states that the OSDBU will review and advise on any decision to convert an activity performed by a small business concern to an activity performed by a federal employee. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
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 Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, related to assigning small business technical advisors, because it said that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement delegates the authority to appoint small business technical advisers to the head of the contracting activity. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid because when a statutory provision such as section 15(k) and regulations such as the acquisition regulation conflict, the statute controls. An agency official said that the DOD OSBP recommended, as part of the legislative proposal process, changes to the National Defense Authorization Act to align with the DOD OSBP's interpretation of the statute, but it did not make it out of DOD. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.
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: For section 15(k)(3), related to reporting requirement (head of agency or deputy head), a VA official stated that the agency has changed the reporting relationship of the OSDBU director. The official stated that the Deputy Secretary will now act as rating Official for the Executive Director, OSDBU, and will sign the initial draft rating. The official also provided a Senior Executive Leaders FY 2018 Rating Scheme (dated January 2018) which shows that the Deputy Secretary rates and reviews the OSDBU director. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(8), related to assigning small business technical advisors, an agency official stated that VA has circulated a draft Memorandum of Understanding for concurrence which would address among other things, the extent of supervisory authority to be exercised over the Small Business Technical Advisor personnel by the Executive Director, OSDBU, while the advisor personnel remain employees of the contracting activity. The official stated that VA's revised target completion date for this effort is September 30, 2019. We will continue to monitor VA's efforts to address this part of the recommendation. For section 15(k)(11), related to advise on in-sourcing, as of January 18, 2018, VA updated its Small Business Procurement Review Program Policy to include language about the role of the OSDBU as it relates to the requirements for section 15(k)(11). A VA official also stated that the policy was distributed by email to VA's acquisition workforce and was also posted to the agency's intranet on February 12, 2018. The official stated that this policy has been distributed to OSDBU staff and provided a copy to GAO. The information provided is sufficient to close as implemented this part of the recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-703, Aug 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9601
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: Based on the evidence DSCA has provided to date, this recommendation remains open. In March and September 2019, DSCA provided responses, including a copy of the October 2018 Memorandum eliminating 13-27, which was the requirement to provide the first item or service within 180 days of signing the LOA. DSCA also indicated that it had established an initiative to identify milestones. In order to close this recommendation, DSCA needs to provide evidence that this initiative resulted in the identification and implementation of metrics and targets to measure the cycle time of FMS sales from LOA implementation to delivery, and the collection of the appropriate data necessary to use the metrics to manage performance. In the absence of such measures, DSCA's elimination of the 180-day requirement is not consistent with GAO's recommendation to ensure the collection of data measuring the timeliness of the delivery and services to recipient countries. GAO is reviewing responses provided in late 2019 to see whether they satisfy the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019 DSCA indicated that it has not yet identified the most appropriate milestones to efficiently and effectively track FMS sales. In addition, pursuant to Recommendation #1, DSCA has eliminated the only performance metric for measuring the timeliness of the delivery of goods and services upon executing an LOA. This recommendation remains open until DSCA identifies the metrics, and collects and analyzes the data to measure performance, including the timeliness of the process. GAO is reviewing the responses provided in late 2019 to determine whether they satisfy the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, DSCA officials informed GAO that DSCA will include a workforce plan in a Human Capital Strategy Plan. In June 2019, GAO was informed that the Human Capital Strategy had been completed, and requested a copy. In September 2019, DSCA informed us that the workforce plan should be completed by December 2020. GAO may be able to close this recommendation after receiving and reviewing the Strategy if it includes the promised workforce plan.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2019, DSCA informed GAO that it is currently establishing workload models. In order to close Recommendation 4, DSCA should provide, or make available for review, the workload models for the Country Portfolio Director and Country Financial Director positions, as well as the workload models for Title 10 equipping and end-use monitoring positions. In September 2019, DSCA provided information on the status of the efforts to develop workload measures. DSCA should also provide an explanation of why DSCA has determined that these functions lend themselves to a workload model, while other functions do not. GAO is reviewing the response provided in late 2019 to determine whether DSCA has satisfied the recommendation.
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-17-632, Aug 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with this recommendation. In December 2017, HHS communicated its intent to review regulations and enhance its capacity to measure, monitor, and improve care and quality across a number of domains, including MLTSS. As of February 2020, HHS stated that it is developing guidance related to reporting on key information needed to oversee beneficiary access to care. GAO will continue to monitor the department's actions and any steps taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-574, Aug 14, 2017
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Education continues to disagree with this recommendation, noting that it already requires schools to disclose a list of other schools with which they have established articulation agreements. However, we believe that posting this information online would make it more accessible to prospective students compared to publications located physically on a school's campus, particularly for those who live far away from the school. Education also noted that students should contact specific schools to obtain accurate and updated transfer information. However, we found that not all schools listed transfer-specific contacts on their websites. In addition, Education cautioned that placing special emphasis on articulation agreements could mislead students because the agreements - or lack thereof - do not fully reflect the transferability of credits However, we found that a majority of schools already disclose a list of partner schools on their websites. We believe that posting a list of partner schools online would complement credit transfer policies, which schools are already required to post online. Given that the purpose of required consumer disclosures on articulation agreements is to inform students, we continue to believe that posting this information online would make it more accessible to prospective students and their families while enhancing students' understanding of their transfer options.
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-17-706, Jul 31, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of State and DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have not jointly assessed applicant fraud risks across the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), consistent with federal internal control standards and leading practices for fraud risk management. Specifically, we reported that although State and USCIS perform a number of fraud risk management activities and have responded to individual instances of applicant fraud in the program, these efforts do not position State and USCIS to assess fraud risks program-wide for USRAP or know if their controls are appropriately targeted to the areas of highest risk in the program. Therefore, we recommended that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State conduct regular joint assessments of applicant fraud risk across USRAP. USCIS concurred with our recommendation. In response, State reported that it will work together with USCIS to conduct joint risk assessments by jointly developing a risk assessment framework. According to DHS and State documentation, the departments finalized a joint framework in January 2018. In February 2019, DHS and State provided us with the interim progress report on their efforts to conduct an assessment of applicant fraud risk across USRAP. In June 2019, USCIS reported that DHS and State have completed the planned analysis and the draft report is being prepared for leadership review and clearance. DHS estimated that the report will be completed by September 30, 2020. To fully address the recommendation, State and USCIS should jointly conduct regular fraud risk assessments across USRAP.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: We reported that the Department of State and DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have not jointly assessed applicant fraud risks across the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), consistent with federal internal control standards and leading practices for fraud risk management. Specifically, we reported that although State and USCIS perform a number of fraud risk management activities and have responded to individual instances of applicant fraud in the program, these efforts do not position State and USCIS to assess fraud risks program-wide for USRAP or know if their controls are appropriately targeted to the areas of highest risk in the program. Therefore, we recommended that the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State conduct regular joint assessments of applicant fraud risk across USRAP. USCIS concurred with our recommendation. In response, State reported that it will work together with USCIS to conduct joint risk assessments by jointly developing a risk assessment framework. According to DHS and State documentation, the departments finalized a joint framework in January 2018. In February 2019, DHS and State provided us with the interim progress report on their efforts to conduct an assessment of applicant fraud risk across USRAP. In June 2019, USCIS reported that DHS and State have completed the planned analysis and the draft report is being prepared for leadership review and clearance. DHS estimated that the report will be completed by September 30, 2020. To fully address the recommendation, State and USCIS should jointly conduct regular fraud risk assessments across USRAP.
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The VA Enterprise Mail Management Program Office revised Directive and Handbook 6340 "Mail Management" to include agency-wide goals and performance measures for mail operations and provided GAO draft versions of both documents in March 2020 that are currently under administration review. According to VA officials, final publication of the revised Directive and Handbook 6340 is estimated to be completed between September and December 2020. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-17-668, Jul 27, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9971
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. We reached out to DOD in August 2018 on this recommendation and are awaiting their response.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD has implemented one geo-location policy in 2018 relating to operations security that addresses a portion of this recommendation.
GAO-17-637, Jul 27, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), signed into law on October 5, 2018, directed the establishment of an Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee. The Act also required the committee to make recommendations on a variety of topics, including what additional data from air ambulance providers and other sources should be collected by DOT to improve its understanding of the industry. On September 12, 2019, DOT announced the formation of the AAPB Advisory Committee, including the appointment of 13 members. The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee was held in January 2020. Soon after this meeting, three subcommittees were established, including one on Disclosure and Distinction of Charges and Coverage for Air Ambulance Services and another on Prevention of Balance Billing. Subcommittee meetings began in March 2020, although given the impact of COVID-19, the subcommittee meets scheduled for April and May 2020 were postponed. Pursuant to the Act, the AAPB Advisory Committee is to submit a report containing its recommendations not later than 180 days after the date of its first meeting. GAO will continue to monitor the work of the AAPB Advisory Committee related to this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), signed into law on October 5, 2018, directed the establishment of an Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee. The Act also required the committee to make recommendations on a variety of topics, including the recommendations from this GAO report. On September 12, 2019, DOT announced the formation of the AAPB Advisory Committee, including the appointment of 13 members. The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee was held in January 2020. Soon after this meeting, three subcommittees were established, including one on Disclosure and Distinction of Charges and Coverage for Air Ambulance Services and another on Prevention of Balance Billing. Subcommittee meetings began in March 2020, although given the impact of COVID-19, the subcommittee meets scheduled for April and May 2020 were postponed. Pursuant to the Act, the AAPB Advisory Committee is to submit a report containing its recommendations not later than 180 days after the date of its first meeting. GAO will continue to monitor the work of the AAPB Advisory Committee related to this recommendation.
GAO-17-395, Jul 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, but the agency provided some evidence of its progress in implementing this recommendation. When IRS fully implements this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of FY 2019 IRS financial statements, IRS did not submit this recommendation for closure, nor did the agency provide evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. When IRS indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review relevant IRS actions.
GAO-17-597, Jul 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said its Space Acquisition Review Board (SARB) continues to meet periodically and focuses on efficiently using the agency's resources to reduce its real estate footprint and proactively addressing organizational and operational changes. In addition, SSA said its goals, results, and future plans of its real estate strategy are documented in its annual Real Property Efficiency Plan. GAO reviewed SSA's Real Property Efficiency Plan for 2019-2023 (dated September 2018). This plan states that SSA is using two model field offices to test how emerging technologies and service delivery methods could result in reductions to field office space agency-wide. However, it does not include specific plans for adjusting its overall physical footprint in light of expanding remote service delivery. To close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has developed a long-term facility plan--possibly building on its model field office pilot--that links to its strategic goals for service delivery and includes a plan for adjusting its field offices in light of increasing use of and geographic variation in remote service delivery.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it published its consolidated and revised Space Allocation Standards and Space Computation Worksheets in June 2019. It said the revised standards include standardized offices, work stations, and employee personal storage space. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that the revised space allocation standards allow more flexibility for growth in demand and new service delivery methods, or at least that SSA considered incorporating such flexibility.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has identified the most common reasons for technician follow-up on the iClaims system, and based on these reasons has developed a list of potential future enhancements to iClaim. SSA said it prioritized the enhancements based on which would provide the most relief, but is still determining if enhancements can be made. To close this recommendation as implemented, GAO will need to see evidence that SSA has in fact implemented changes to the iClaim system based on the data it collected on reasons for technician follow-up.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2020, SSA said it has developed performance goals for its SSA Express Icons: 15,000 new visitors annually and 50 new partner sites annually. It also said it continues to work on a dashboard for behavioral based management information data collection for the Icon project. This effort will allow the agency to collect better data regarding customer usage. For GAO to close this recommendation as implemented, SSA will need to demonstrate that it has implemented performance measures for its full range of alternative service delivery methods and is collecting related performance information.
GAO-17-636, Jul 20, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, VA stated that the handbook was out for concurrences and received significant feedback/edits. VA is currently working through those edits and plans on submitting the revised version for internal concurrences in the next two weeks. VA said it will follow back up with GAO to provide a status on the handbooks approval and subsequent publishing
GAO-17-613, Jul 18, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had developed and documented misconduct policies and procedures for most employees, but not its entire workforce. Specifically, FEMA had not documented misconduct policies and procedures for Surge Capacity Force members, who may augment FEMA's workforce in the event of a catastrophic disaster. As a result, we recommended that FEMA document policies and procedures to address potential Surge Capacity Force misconduct. In September 2017, FEMA officials reported taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, FEMA distributed a memorandum to Federal Coordinating Officers and Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators providing guidance on how and to whom to report allegations of misconduct by Surge Capacity Force members, coordination efforts regarding investigations, and how to address the member's duty status during the course of an investigation. FEMA stated that it will further address this recommendation by updating the FEMA Human Capital Plan for the Surge Capacity Force. As of August 2020, FEMA was finalizing a comprehensive Human Capital Guide based on lessons learned during the 2017 disaster season, which will address the Surge Capacity Force. This recommendation will remain open until the Human Capital Guide is completed.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) policies and procedures for Reservist employees did not outline disciplinary options to address misconduct or address the appeals process available for Reservists. As a result, we recommended that FEMA document Reservist disciplinary options and appeals policies and procedures that are currently in practice at the agency. In September 2017, FEMA reported that the Office of Response and Recovery was drafting an addendum to the FEMA Reservist program manual. As of August 2020, FEMA was finalizing a FEMA Reservist Performance Management Directive which will provide agency-wide guidance for Reservist management and discipline. FEMA expects the directive to be completed by November 2020. This recommendation will remain open until the directive is complete.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: We found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not regularly conduct trend analysis on misconduct cases, and that the quality of the data restricted the agency's ability to identify and address trends. As a result, we recommended that, once steps were taken to improve the quality of the data, FEMA should conduct routine reporting on employee misconduct trends. As of July 2020, FEMA's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) changed plans on which information system to use for reporting purposes due to cyber security concerns. According to FEMA officials, OPR will be using a DHS enterprise system and the system will be able to generate regular reporting. FEMA anticipates reporting functionality by October 2020. We will continue to monitor FEMA's efforts to address the recommendation.
GAO-17-467, Jul 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with this recommendation. On May 23, 2018, HHS's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that it is currently in the process of developing an improper payment measurement for the advance premium tax credit (PTC). The development of the measurement methodologies will be a multi-year process which consists of the development of measurement policies, procedures, and tools. It also includes extensive pilot testing to ensure an accurate and efficient improper payment estimate, as well as, acquisition activities for procurement of improper payment measurement contractors. In January 2020, CMS stated that it is still in the process of developing an improper payment measurement for the advance PTC. Further, CMS stated that it provided progress updates in the fiscal year 2019 HHS agency financial report (AFR), and will continue to do so in future AFRs until an improper payment rate is estimated. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. On February 28, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services's (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that updates on the advance premium tax credit (PTC) program improper payment measurement development were provided in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Agency Financial Report (AFR), which was published in November 2017. In FY 2018, we reviewed the FY 2017 AFR that HHS's CMS cited in support for closing this recommendation. Based on our review, the FY 2017 AFR does not address our recommendation as it does not provide a timeline for reporting an improper payment estimate. In FY 2019, we reviewed HHS's FY 2018 AFR published in November 2018, which includes a statement that HHS will continue to update its annual AFRs on the status of the measurement program development until the improper payment estimate is reported. However, this latest AFR also does not provide a timeline for reporting an improper payment estimate for HHS's PTC program. In January 2020, CMS stated that it is in the process of procuring federal contractors to perform the improper payment measurement. However, CMS further stated that due to uncertainties surrounding the timing of the procurement, CMS does not anticipate publishing a reporting timeline until the contracts have been awarded. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding verification of filer identity, HHS stated, in response to the draft report, that for individuals starting an application via phone, the call center representatives use verbal attestations for verifications from individuals. HHS stated that for paper applications, individuals must provide names and complete addresses as well as other information. In addition, HHS stated that individuals must attest that the information they provide on all applications is accurate by signing under penalty of perjury. However, these steps do not involve the verification of an applicant's identity to a third-party source. In August 2018, HHS officials stated that they are exploring alternatives for assessing risk and ensuring integrity of applicant information that is provided to the program and ways to ensure personal information provided by an individual is accurate through a variety of means. After this analysis phase, they will assess resource requirements, cost, and operational implications for potential implementation approaches with a target date for completion of 2019. As of December 2018, HHS had not designed and implemented procedures for verifying the identities of phone and mail applicants, as GAO recommended. As of January 2020, HHS indicated that it is developing new policy and guidance which could significantly change potential solutions or requirements. However, HHS did not provide us a time frame for when it plans to finalize the new policy and guidance. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) partially agreed with this recommendation. On December 13, 2019, IRS provided us a status update and stated that its Research, Applied Analytics and Statistics division completed an analysis of net premium tax credit (PTC) using National Research Program (NRP) tax years 2015 and 2014 data during the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2019 and developed improper payment estimates using two different methodological approaches. However, IRS indicated that it did not publish these improper payment estimates in Treasury's Agency Financial Report for two reasons: (1) there is as yet insufficient NRP data to develop an estimate that is within the confidence interval and margin of error prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget for improper payments sampling, and (2) the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) wishes to engage with Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the potential for developing a joint rate estimate for advance PTC and PTC. In addition, IRS noted that it had not yet determined whether this is even possible from a data compatibility standpoint. Further, IRS stated that while the estimates do not meet the statistical precision requirement, they do suggest that Net PTC would meet the criteria to be considered susceptible to significant improper payments. IRS indicated that when it last discussed this recommendation with GAO, it was suggested this recommendation would be closed once improper payment rates are published. However, IRS would now like GAO to consider closing this recommendation at this time given (1) the IRS's efforts to analyze potential improper payments, (2) Treasury's new approach to reporting, and (3) the need for additional years of data before a statistically valid estimate can be developed. We do not believe the recommendation should be closed at this time based on the three reasons IRS has listed above. However, we credit IRS for exploring ways to meet the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agreed with this recommendation. In December 2018, an IRS official indicated that IRS conducted a detailed review of the recommendation. IRS informed GAO that it is internally discussing an alternative way to address the recommendation to prevent premium tax credit to noncitizens. The IRS official indicated that IRS is reviewing this alternative with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. IRS did not provide GAO with a time frame for its implementation. On December 13, 2019, IRS provided us a status update and stated that it had no new information for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-418, Jul 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD disagreed with our recommendation to clarify the Navy's ship delivery policy and stated that other existing policies help ensure the completion and capability of ships at delivery. However, as of August 2020, Navy officials stated that they are working on a new response based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to develop a new proposal for responding to this recommendation by December 2020. We maintain that the Navy's ship delivery policy is a key instruction for ensuring that complete, mission-capable ships are provided to the fleet and should be revised in line with our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD and the Navy did not concur with this recommendation, noting that the current timing of Navy Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) trials provides the Navy with an opportunity to ensure contractual obligations have been met and identify construction deficiencies for correction during the post-delivery period. DOD and the Navy also stated that adding another INSURV trial at the end of the post-delivery period would not be cost-effective and could delay ship deployment schedules. However, we found that most of the significant construction deficiencies identified prior to delivery were not corrected until the post-delivery period and, therefore, INSURV generally did not have an opportunity to inspect these corrections before ships were provided to the fleet. Given this, we maintain that the Navy should re-assess the timing of its post-delivery trials in support of INSURV's responsibility to make recommendations for fleet introduction. As of August 2020, DOD officials stated that they are working on a proposal to address this recommendation based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to complete this proposal by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD and the Navy agreed to report obligation work limiting dates (OWLD) in its Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, and, as of December 2018, has implemented this portion of the recommendation. The department added the OWLDs for all ships that have yet to achieve this milestone to its Selected Acquisition Reports and plans to continue reporting this information in all subsequent Selected Acquisition Reports. However, DOD did not agree to report ready-to-deploy dates in the Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, noting that operational factors outside of acquisition concerns can affect the timing of this milestone. While we agree that readiness to deploy is a fleet determination, we continue to believe that this date is important for Congressional oversight, as it remains the best milestone for determining when a ship has achieved a sufficient level of completeness to operate, under the Navy's current framework for ship delivery. As of August 2020, DOD and Navy officials stated that they are working on a new proposal for addressing the recommendation based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to complete this proposal by December 2020.
GAO-17-524, Jul 12, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3406
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), we determined that this recommendation remained open. Treasury believes that its current remediation plan, including its various corrective action plans (CAPs), is comprehensive, appropriate, and effective, with robust and ongoing monitoring processes in place. However, we continue to note that the CAPs in these three areas do not include sufficient steps to effectively address related control deficiencies involving processes used to prepare the CFS. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
GAO-17-457, Jun 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) officials indicated that organizations can determine cost savings attributable to contracting utilizing the Virtual Contracting Enterprise. However, this method is not formalized or documented in policy or guidance, and DASA(P) officials have not incorporated cost savings attributable to contracting into the CERs. We continue to believe that the Army should implement a CER metric to evaluate cost savings attributable to contracting activities.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) officials noted that the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the system for processing and collecting contractor performance information, but also expressed that the information contained in the system may not be reliable for assessing contractor performance. The information contained in CPARS is subjective and has had thousands of overdue required entries. The DASA(P) officials subsequently stated that DOD made improvements to CPARS based on a 2017 DOD Inspector General report. However, the officials have not provided any information identifying specific improvements DOD made, or evidence that CPARS is now an effective means to collect and report contractor performance data.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) is in the process of implementing talent management metrics through its Contracting Enterprise Review (CER) briefings. To this end, the 2nd quarter, fiscal year 2020 CER briefing included information about skill-based hiring and flexibilities for tailored training. However, the CER briefing did not address the department's contracting workforce requirements. We continue to believe that the ASA(ALT) should accurately determine the department's contracting workforce requirements in accordance with the Army's needs.
GAO-17-568, Jun 22, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. Previously, Army officials told GAO that they planned to implement this recommendation after the new Army Futures Command-which currently manages capabilities development for the Army-became fully operational. Although this command became fully operational in July 2019, Army officials stated that more time is needed to fully coordinate and implement this recommendation. The Army Futures Command will work with the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency to assess the capabilities development workforce focused on requirements prior to programs entering the system development phase. Army officials estimate that this assessment will be completed in March 2021. In June 2020, GAO staff received a brief status update from the Army PAO who confirmed that this is still the plan.
GAO-17-449, Jun 21, 2017
Phone: (213) 830-1011
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. DOD began reviewing its secondary item inventory warehousing in July 2017 to consolidate underused distribution centers. In February 2018, DOD officials stated that the department will conduct three site studies by fiscal year 2019 to assess the viability and any potential savings from consolidation at these locations. In April 2019, DOD officials stated that the site studies had been completed and they anticipate a final report in late May 2019.
GAO-17-542, Jun 8, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that the Armed Forces Sports Council approved performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program at a council meeting held in April 2018. Officials said the approved performance measures went into effect in January 2019 in conjunction with the Armed Forces Sports Program's 2019 calendar year. Officials said that the baseline year for the performance measures is 2019 which they are currently collecting data for. Officials plan to provide an update on the program once they have collected and reviewed the 2019 baseline year performance measures. Additionally, officials said that OSD is working to update DOD Instruction 1330.04 to require the Armed Forces Sports Council to develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program and review and track performance metrics annually. The DOD Instruction language has been updated and is currently pending review prior to the start of formal coordination.
GAO-17-538, May 30, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: On November 16, 2017, FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to adopt a self-enforcing budget mechanism for the Lifeline program. However, as of January 2020, FCC has not yet adopted a decision on this proposal.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: According to the FCC as of January 28, 2020, the agency does not currently have a schedule to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: FCC's enforcement must remain flexible in order to be responsive to the ever changing variants that Universal Service Fund violations may take. According to the FCC, as with all Commission matters, the Chairman may indicate agency priorities in terms of subject matter, but the Chairman does not dictate which cases the Enforcement Bureau pursues. The Office of the Chairman, in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau, has articulated priorities with respect to enforcement activities in the Lifeline area including, but not limited to: 1. Detection and elimination of willful attempts to defraud the Lifeline Program by claiming support subsidies for ineligible or fictitious subscribers. 2. Detection and elimination of unlawful claims for enhanced support for Tribal areas. 3. Detection and elimination of carrier collections of multiple support subsidies for duplicative subscribers, regardless of the source of duplications. 4. Detection and elimination of carrier failures to de-enroll inactive or ineligible subscribers. The Enforcement Bureau has focused its enforcement efforts in line with these priorities and has taken a number of actions since the publication of GAO-17-538.
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: According to the FCC, the FCC is scheduled to complete implementing this recommendation in December 2021.
GAO-17-364, May 24, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. As of June 2020, the agency had taken some action, but had not fully implemented it. We will update this recommendation's status as we receive more information.
GAO-17-421, May 24, 2017
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation. In early August 2017, Indian Affairs reported that BIA regional leadership, in collaboration with Indian Affairs' safety office, will develop and publish a safety training plan for all Indian Affairs employees with responsibilities for safety inspections. Additionally, Indian Affairs reported that BIA and BIE will develop and implement a policy to ensure that first-line supervisors monitor and report on whether employees have completed the training requirements. Indian Affairs reported a target date of January 31, 2020 for implementing this recommendation. In May 2018, Indian Affairs reported that it had completed a draft training plan and noted that it had been submitted to management for review. We requested copies of the training plan but as of August 2018, we had not been provided any. In April 2019, Indian Affairs provided documentation that it had developed and implemented a plan to assess all employees' safety training needs. In addition, agency officials reported that Interior's new training management system allows supervisors to track employees' completion of required safety training courses. However, the agency did not provide documentation that senior managers are overseeing employees' compliance with Indian Affairs' safety training requirements. In May 2020, Indian Affairs officials told us that they had developed a process to generate reports on personnel safety training compliance and would provide documentation demonstrating that such reports are shared with management to address training noncompliance. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions in this area.
GAO-17-454R, May 17, 2017
Phone: (202)512-9377
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. During fiscal year 2018, IRS created an annual Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) review and certification requirement to reasonably assure that all IRM sections align with the current control procedures and guidance that IRS personnel are implementing. In addition, the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) and Tax Exempt & Government Entities (TE/GE) organizations developed action plans to achieve substantial compliance with this requirement. During fiscal year 2019, the SB/SE organization completed its action plan; however, IRS officials stated that the TE/GE organization will complete its action plan during fiscal year 2020. Further, in fiscal year 2019, the Large Business & International organization reviewed and analyzed the results of its involvement in the annual IRM certification process. Based on the results of its analysis, the organization developed an action plan to achieve substantial compliance with the IRM review and certification requirement, which IRS officials stated it will complete by December 2021.
GAO-17-398, May 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will revise guidance on independent government cost estimates. As of September 2020, despite numerous requests, we still have not received any information on steps HHS has taken to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS agreed with the recommendation and stated that it will revise guidance on independent government cost estimates. As of September 2020, despite numerous requests, we still have not received any information on steps HHS has taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-260, May 16, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: At the time of report publication DOD indicated it did not concur with this recommendation. However after publication, the department indicated it concurred with the recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD is continuing to take actions to address this recommendation. When actions have been completed, GAO will update the status of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2018, the department indicated that it was addressing the recommendation by requiring the military services to submit a report in March 2018 and March 2019 on how they are monitoring adherence to policies related to screening certain servicemembers for PTSD and TBI prior to separation for misconduct. In August 2020, the department indicated it completed a cycle of compliance reporting by the military services in April 2020. DOD stated it would conduct a final compliance reporting cycle in March 2021. GAO maintains that monitoring of compliance on a routine basis (i.e., ongoing) is necessary and will keep the recommendation open until the department indicates that routine monitoring will occur.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, the department is continuing to take actions to address this recommendation. When actions have been completed, GAO will update the status of the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2018, the department indicated that it was addressing the recommendation by requiring the military services to submit a report in March 2018 and March 2019 on how they are monitoring adherence to policies related to counseling about VA benefits and services during the process of separating certain servicemembers for misconduct. In August 2020, the department indicated it completed a cycle of compliance reporting by the military services in April 2020. DOD stated it would conduct a final compliance reporting cycle in March 2021. GAO maintains that monitoring of compliance on a routine basis (i.e., ongoing) is necessary and will keep the recommendation open until the department indicates that routine monitoring will occur.
GAO-17-306, May 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress is continuing to consider whether to implement this Matter.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, DOE is taking steps to implement GAO's May 2017 recommendation. In 2017, DOE's Office of River Protection contracted with Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally funded research and development center, to evaluate viable treatment options for supplemental low-activity waste. According to DOE, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a peer review of that laboratory's evaluation. The laboratory issued a final report in October 2019, and the National Academies issued a final report in late March 2020. According to DOE officials, both reports include information DOE may be able to use in making a decision about treating supplemental low-activity waste. DOE told GAO that they plan to use the studies as scoping documents as they move forward with the decision process. According to DOE officials, as of January 2020, DOE plans to decide how it will treat supplemental low-activity waste by 2026. In addition, in response to GAO's May 2017 recommendation, DOE said it successfully completed the first phase of a project--called the Test Bed Initiative--in December 2017 to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of three gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at an alternate disposal site in Andrews, Texas. As of November 2018, DOE was beginning a second phase to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of 2,000 gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at the same site in Texas. However, DOE stopped the demonstration project in spring 2019 when it withdrew its permit application for the Test Bed Initiative. According to DOE officials, this was because the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposed that DOE and Ecology engage in negotiations to develop a "holistic and realistic" approach to the retrieval and treatment of Hanford's tank waste. Congressional appropriations committees directed that DOE could spend up to $10 million to continue the Test Bed Initiative in fiscal year 2020, but DOE officials do not have specific plans for resuming the initiative. In October 2018, DOE requested public comment on a new interpretation of the statutory term "high level waste," which if the agency adopts it, could facilitate the use of alternate treatment and disposal methods. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibits DOE from spending its fiscal year 2020 funds on applying this high-level radioactive waste interpretation at Hanford, and as a result, DOE officials stated that DOE does not have near-term plans to use this high-level waste interpretation for supplemental low-activity waste at Hanford. Until DOE develops information that reflects what is now known about the performance of alternate treatment and disposal methods, such as immobilizing tank waste in grout, congressional and agency decision makers will not have access to current scientific information as they decide how to best allocate limited financial resources among many competing needs. Moreover, having updated information on the effectiveness of alternate methods for treating supplemental low-activity waste will help to inform DOE's discussions with the state of Washington.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, DOE is taking steps to implement GAO's May 2017 recommendation. In 2017, DOE's Office of River Protection contracted with Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally funded research and development center, to evaluate viable treatment options for supplemental low-activity waste. According to DOE, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a peer review of that laboratory's evaluation. The laboratory issued a final report in October 2019, and the National Academies issued a final report in late March 2020. According to DOE officials, both reports include information DOE may be able to use in making a decision about treating supplemental low-activity waste. DOE told GAO that they plan to use the studies as scoping documents as they move forward with the decision process. According to DOE officials, as of January 2020, DOE plans to decide how it will treat supplemental low-activity waste by 2026. In addition, in response to GAO's May 2017 recommendation, DOE said it successfully completed the first phase of a project--called the Test Bed Initiative--in December 2017 to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of three gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at an alternate disposal site in Andrews, Texas. As of November 2018, DOE was beginning a second phase to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of 2,000 gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at the same site in Texas. However, DOE stopped the demonstration project in spring 2019 when it withdrew its permit application for the Test Bed Initiative. According to DOE officials, this was because the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposed that DOE and Ecology engage in negotiations to develop a "holistic and realistic" approach to the retrieval and treatment of Hanford's tank waste. Congressional appropriations committees directed that DOE could spend up to $10 million to continue the Test Bed Initiative in fiscal year 2020, but DOE officials do not have specific plans for resuming the initiative. In October 2018, DOE requested public comment on a new interpretation of the statutory term "high level waste," which if the agency adopts it, could facilitate the use of alternate treatment and disposal methods. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibits DOE from spending its fiscal year 2020 funds at Hanford on this high-level radioactive waste interpretation, and as a result, DOE officials stated that DOE does not have near-term plans to use this high-level waste interpretation for supplemental low-activity waste at Hanford. Until DOE develops information that reflects what is now known about the costs of alternate treatment and disposal methods, such as immobilizing tank waste in grout, congressional and agency decision makers will not have access to current cost information as they decide how to best allocate limited financial resources among many competing needs.
GAO-17-301, Apr 13, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 22, 2020, USDA has not provided an update regarding its plans to implement staff procedures for conducting periodic evaluations of completed grant projects to measure the success of meeting the program goals. Once RUS provides an update regarding what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 22, 2020, RUS has not provided an update on how it will more efficiently manage and monitor RUS loan and grant awards. Once RUS provides an update regarding what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 22, 2020, RUS has not provided an update on how it plans to identify and prioritize critical manuals and instructions that will need to be developed or updated and formulate work plans to develop or update each of them. Once RUS provides an update regarding what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: We reported in May 2019 that DOE and NNSA continued to make progress in responding to this recommendation. The draft 2018 annual report contained, as recommended, more complete and uniform information on assessments, though in some cases different terminology was used by programs and sites. As of June 2020, we have requested final 2018, 2019, and 2020 annual reports from NNSA to ensure progress has continued. Once we have received and reviewed the reports, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, DOE has not implemented this recommendation. While DOE program offices (Environmental Management, Science, and Nuclear Energy) are individually considering long-term needs, the program offices are not required by Congress to submit the kind of physical security plan that Congress requires of NNSA. In the absence of Congressional direction, we believe it is unlikely that DOE will fully implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, we are continuing to monitor actions related to this recommendation. DOE has acknowledged in a classified memorandum the security risks associated with the slow pace of the material control and accountability order. DOE has also developed a plan to implement measures to address these risks in a phased approach with final implementation sometime in the 2020s. Some of the early phases will be complete between 2019 and 2022, but others will extend beyond 2022. As such, it will be important for DOE to continue to report to Congress on residual risk until planned actions are fully completed and their implementation has been verified by the relevant DOE program offices and DOE's Office of Enterprise Assessments. We will update the status of this recommendation once we have we have received and reviewed DOE's classified 2018-2020 annual reports to ensure this action is taken.
GAO-17-312, Apr 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken steps to improve the consistency of oversight of federal spending under section 1115 demonstrations. In November 2018, HHS officials reported that they have developed draft guidance, including a standard reporting tool for states, to better ensure consistent reporting of the elements needed to assess compliance with demonstration spending limits and was in the process of testing the tool with two states. In addition, the agency is developing standard operating procedures for agency staff to require consistent tracking of unspent funds under the spending limit. As of November 2019, HHS has not provided any updates. GAO will continue to monitor HHS's actions and once procedures are in place, GAO will assess whether they address our recommendation.
GAO-17-235, Mar 30, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE concurred in principle with this recommendation, stating that it already had an established, detailed DOE-wide invoice review policy provided in DOE's Financial Management Handbook and in the DOE Acquisition Guide. In February 2020, DOE issued an update to its Financial Management Handbook that included additional procedures to address intra-governmental payment and collection transactions. However, neither the prior version of the Financial Management Handbook nor the additional information includes invoice review procedures. The Financial Management Handbook refers users to the DOE Acquisition Guide for procedures for invoice review. However, the Acquisition Guide states that it is intended to offer general guiding principles for approving officials to consider when reviewing and analyzing cost elements included in contract invoices--as opposed to detailed procedures for invoice review--and does not require sites to establish well-documented invoice review operating procedures, as we recommended.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE partially agreed with the recommendation. In its written comments on the report, DOE stated that it considered the recommendation to be closed without corrective action and that it would rely on the existing Office of Financial Policy and Internal Controls and on the DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG) to design and oversee financial fraud risk management activities. However, we disagree that relying in part on the OIG to design and oversee fraud risk management activities meets best practices because, according to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework, the dedicated entity should not include the OIG so that the OIG can maintain its independence. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE expects to establish a new group in fiscal year 2020 that will oversee DOE's fraud risk management activities. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE concurred with the substance of the recommendation; however they considered the recommendation to be closed without corrective action because DOE believed that its risk assessments met the requirements of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, as reported by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and because it has implemented updates to OMB Circular A-123 that added requirements related to managing fraud risk and adherence to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. However, we found that DOE has not conducted fraud risk assessments that were tailored to its programs and, therefore, do not allow the department to create a fraud risk profile. We also found that, although DOE updated its internal control assessment tools with a list of fraud risks as required by OMB Circular A-123, the list of risks were the same for all DOE sites and were not tailored to the sites' different programs. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, the framework is expected to include changes to DOE's process to develop its fraud risk profile, beginning in fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE concurred with this recommendation but considered the recommendation closed without corrective action because DOE had implemented the updated OMB Circular A-123 and because DOE's antifraud strategy was embedded in the DOE internal control program. However, DOE officials told us that they had not developed or documented a DOE-wide antifraud strategy or directed individual programs to develop program-specific strategies. Furthermore, DOE's implementation of OMB Circular A-123 included adding a list of potential risks to their internal control assessment tool that were the same for all DOE sites and were not tailored to the sites' different programs. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to develop an antifraud strategy in fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE stated that it concurred in principle with the recommendation, but that it had implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to begin in fiscal year 2022 to use data analytics across the agency to prevent fraud. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE did not agree to implement this recommendation because officials believe that the recommendation establishes agency-specific requirements for DOE contractors that are more prescriptive than current federal requirements. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to begin in fiscal year 2022 to use data analytics across the agency to prevent fraud. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-17-332, Mar 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: Office of Human Capital Initiatives
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and the Human Capital Initiatives office has taken several actions to address it, including establishing a more detailed reporting process and providing new guidance to DOD components on how to use the reporting tools. The DOD components, however, have not yet provided Human Capital Initiatives responses to the updated guidance requiring them to provide information on the processes they use to confirm that the data submitted to Human Capital Initiatives on DAWDF initiatives were reliable and complete. In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 made changes to the way that the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) was funded. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021 proposes additional changes to the way that DAWDF is funded and managed. Some DAWDF funding may go directly to the DOD components and will not be overseen by Human Capital Initiatives. Once the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021 is finalized, we will reassess to determine if the recommendation is still relevant.
GAO-17-324, Mar 28, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, IRS officials said LB&I has developed and deployed the Campaign Development Form and the LB&I Taxpayer Registry to capture stakeholder input and feedback. The form documents all actions and a decision made on a particular campaign and is used to monitor real-time performance. While this will help IRS document lessons learned moving forward, IRS officials have not said how they would document lessons learned in the past.
GAO-17-80, Mar 23, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) agreed with GAO's March 2017 recommendation that it conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to guide decisions on implementing the most cost-effective option as stocking and custodial services contracts are renewed, and on choosing product distribution options. For example, according to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, DeCA conducted a cost-benefit analysis as part of renewing an agreement with one of the Navy Exchanges in May 2018 and will provide service on a reimbursable basis instead of using the commercial vendor. DeCA officials stated that they will also review product distribution options during commercial negotiations, including taking into account product sales and shipment requirements, among other things. As of January 2020, DOD has not provided documentation to confirm completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-204, Mar 23, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6912
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2017, we found that USCIS does not track or monitor whether SAVE users have completed training and therefore does not have reasonable assurance that users have mastered SAVE policies and procedures prior to accessing the system. We recommended that USCIS develop and implement a mechanism to oversee agencies' completion of training on additional verification in accordance with SAVE provisions and program policies. The USCIS Verification Division reported that it planned to address providing additional training for SAVE users developed by December 31, 2017. The SAVE Program would then offer training events for agencies on the new material reflecting the agency user requirements for additional verification as well as system enhancements. In September 2017, the Verification Division implemented part one of this recommendation, a monthly webinar training session on user agency responsibilities and additional verification. This training can also be delivered to user agencies upon request. For part two of this recommendation, the SAVE program also developed training features to oversee agencies' completion of training. These training features are a system enhancement that will be incorporated into SAVE's overall modernization effort and was expected to be completed by September 30, 2019. In the interim, SAVE is implementing several other enhancements that will reduce the number of cases sent to additional verification, including the completion of modernized matching logic and initial verification screens and retiring less efficient access methods. In September 2019, SAVE officials told us that SAVE has reduced the number of cases sent to additional verification by retiring inefficient access methods and completing modernization of SAVE matching logic and initial verification screens. However, SAVE officials said they also determined that they must update the SAVE tutorial platform and content to account for these and other changes. Officials said that while SAVE is updated, the program continues to provide training, resources, and other support to user agencies to help ensure they are performing additional verification in accordance with SAVE MOA provisions and program policies. The new estimated completion date is February 28, 2021.
GAO-17-343, Mar 23, 2017
Phone: (202)512-3841
Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority
Status: Open
Comments: In their initial response to our report, TVA neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. In response to our report, TVA has taken some steps to improve the plan's funding status. For example, in fiscal year 2017, TVA made a one-time pension contribution of $500 million to the TVA Retirement System (TVARS) in addition to its $300 million required annual contribution, resulting in a total of $1.7 billion in contributions from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2020 . TVA's one-time contribution and investment returns have improved the funding status of the TVARS plan but the TVARS Rules do not adjust TVA's required contributions to ensure pension liabilities will be fully funded. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Rules need a mechanism that adjusts TVA's contributions to ensure adequate funding regardless of future plan experience.
GAO-17-90, Mar 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: CNCS has been working since September 2018 to review and update its risk assessment process. The CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation has developed a methodology to determine the appropriate score and weight for the assessment indicators. It plans to fully implement the new risk assessment process in fiscal year 2020. To close this recommendation, CNCS will need to show documentation for how it selected and weighted revised indicators to cover identifiable risks, and how the revised scoring system identifies the riskiest grants.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, CNCS stated that revisions to the agency-wide risk assessment instrument include indicators to address prime grantee monitoring and oversight of subrecipients. CNCS established a new Office of Monitoring in 2019, which will be responsible for reviewing and improving monitoring protocols, including those related to subrecipient activities. Enhanced monitoring protocols will be implemented as part of its fiscal year 2020 monitoring plan. To help close this recommendation, CNCS will need to show how it has expanded information it collects pertaining to subrecipients, and how its monitoring efforts reflect this.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, CNCS reported that the new Office of Monitoring supports the agency's May 2018 Transformation and Sustainability Plan goals related to monitoring and evaluating results. This office is developing a monitoring strategy to align with the agency's IT system improvements, and will allow for reporting and data to support a systematic evaluation of grant monitoring results. To help close this recommendation, CNCS will need to show how the agency has used outcomes and findings from its grant monitoring activities to help guide improvements to these activities.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, CNCS is in the process of realigning its grant management and monitoring functions. The agency plans to document critical competencies for grant management and monitoring roles and establish a training program to strengthen its grant monitoring performance. By December 2019, CNCS plans to implement a comprehensive orientation curriculum and a more effective onboarding procedure, updated staff support training materials, among other changes to its training efforts. To close this recommendation, CNCS will need to determine which competencies are critical for grant monitoring, and show how the competencies are linked with the agency's training planning processes and agency goals.
GAO-17-293, Mar 21, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In its June 9, 2017, response to our report, Interior indicated that BSEE is developing new strategies to improve trust and foster greater collaboration for consideration by the new Director. In September 2018, Interior provided documentation of several BSEE actions, including establishing an Employee Engagement Council, an Innovation Program, and Ombudsman position within the bureau. As of August 2020, BSEE indicated that these efforts remain ongoing. However, this recommendation remains open because BSEE has not yet demonstrated that these actions represent an enduring institutionalization of improved communication throughout the bureau.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In its June 2017 response to our report, Interior indicated that BSEE will incorporate lessons learned from its first enterprise risk management cycle in future cycles and that BSEE will incorporate a performance management dashboard in fiscal year 2018. In August 2019, BSEE provided documentation regarding actions it has taken to implement and institutionalize its enterprise risk management and performance measure initiatives. In August 2020, BSEE indicated that implementation of these processes remains ongoing. However, this recommendation remains open because BSEE has not yet demonstrated that these actions represent an enduring institutionalization of improved internal management initiatives and ongoing strategic initiatives throughout the bureau.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In its June 2017 response to our report, Interior indicated that BSEE's response to this recommendation would be incorporated into its corrective actions for recommendation one. In September 2018, Interior provided documentation of several BSEE actions, including establishing an Employee Engagement Council, an Innovation Program, and Ombudsman position within the bureau. As of August 2020, BSEE indicated that these efforts remain ongoing. However, this recommendation remains open because BSEE has not yet demonstrated that these actions represent an enduring institutionalization of expanded employee engagement throughout the bureau.
GAO-17-348, Mar 14, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, WMATA is managing three efforts focused on improving WMATA's asset inventory and condition assessment processes. Specifically, WMATA reported that it is developing Data Governance and Standards rules and working with contractors to improve WMATA's asset inventory and condition assessment processes. These efforts should all be complete by the end of 2020. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, WMATA has implemented a new process to evaluate major projects. More specifically, WMATA's new initiative includes a process for assessing and presenting alternative strategies for selected major projects. WMATA currently has a number of cases moving through this process for the first time, and GAO will assess the outcomes of these cases as well as the extent to which this process is codified in WMATA policies later in 2020.
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, WMATA is updating its Infrastructure Project Implementation Manual, which would cover projects such as new construction and rehabilitation of facilities and systems. WMATA is planning to issue the update for the Project Implementation Manual by end of September 2020. GAO will continue to monitor WMATA's progress in addressing this recommendation.
GAO-17-224, Mar 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9601
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In December 2017, USAID informed us that new Title II development awards would require partners to adhere to a requirement that it added in July 2017 to the Food for Peace development award template, which requires programs to provide quarterly performance reports on actual cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities. USAID also noted that it had developed a new WFP emergency award template with reporting requirements for monitoring data on cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities. In February 2018, USAID provided support that it has developed training and standardized oversight staff roles and responsibilities to help ensure that complete and consistent monitoring data is collected for Title II development and emergency projects. However, USAID still needs to provide evidence that it collects complete and consistent monitoring data from implementing partners for Title II projects, in accordance with established requirements. As of September 2020, we continue to monitor USAID's ongoing actions taken in response to this recommendation.
GAO-17-192, Mar 2, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS stated that FDA published a notice in the Federal Register In September 2016 requesting information from the public about how to establish appropriately targeted durations of use for therapeutic products affected by Guidance for Industry #213 with no defined duration of use. According to HHS, FDA evaluated the comments received and plans to develop a strategy to address this issue. In July 2019, HHS stated that FDA published a Request for Applications on April 1, 2019 for study proposals to help establish more targeted or defined durations of use for approved medically important antimicrobial drugs used in the feed of food-producing animals. There are currently no such products approved for use in water with an undefined duration of use. According to HHS, due to significant scientific and technical challenges, FDA anticipates that this initiative will require substantial time to fully implement so the primary objective is to update product dosage regimens to better target when and for how long the drug may be used.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS stated that FDA recognizes that a limited number of medically important antimicrobial products, available in dosage forms other than feed or water (e.g., injectable), continue to be marketed as OTC products and the agency intends to work with the sponsors to put these products under veterinary oversight. In July 2019, HHS stated that FDA released a broad 5-year plan in September 2018 outlining steps to support stewardship of medically important antimicrobials in veterinary settings. As part of that plan, FDA intends to publish a draft strategy, likely in the form of draft guidance for industry, to bring all dosage forms (such as injectables and tablets) of medically important antimicrobial drugs under veterinary oversight. The draft strategy will also provide a framework, including proposed timelines, for transitioning from over-the-counter to prescription marketing status for all approved medically important antimicrobial drugs that are not yet subject to veterinary oversight. FDA plans to issue this draft strategy no later than the end of fiscal year 2019. In conjunction with issuing the draft strategy, FDA intends to publish a list of affected new animal drug applications.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2017, as part of the agency's formal comments, HHS initially neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. Subsequently, in a September 2017 letter, HHS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2018, HHS noted that FDA has taken steps to develop performance measures and targets. According to HHS, FDA issued a final rule in May 2016 revising annual reporting requirements for drug sponsors of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals to obtain estimates of sales broken out by major food-producing species (i.e., cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys). Additionally, in August 2017, FDA published a paper proposing the use of a biomass denominator to adjust annual data on the volume of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals in the United States. According to HHS, this adjusted estimate will provide insight into broad shifts in the volume of antimicrobials sold for use in food-producing animals. FDA is also funding two grants for antimicrobial use data collection. These collection efforts are intended to provide part of the baseline information on antimicrobial use practices in the four major food-producing animal groups (i.e., cattle, swine, chickens, and turkeys), which is a critical element in measuring overall impact of the agency's judicious use strategy. FDA expects these data collection efforts to provide important information on methodologies to help optimize long-term strategies to collect and report such antimicrobial use data. In addition, FDA has been working in close collaboration with USDA, including providing input on recent surveys administered by USDA to collect information on antimicrobial use on farms. In July 2019, according to HHS, FDA agrees that performance measures and targets are needed to help gauge the success of antimicrobial stewardship efforts. While the agency continues to work on developing such measures and targets, FDA reported a decrease in domestic sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials intended for use in food-producing animals (e.g. decreased by 33 percent from 2016 through 2017). HHS noted that the reduction in sales volume is an important indicator that ongoing efforts to support antimicrobial stewardship are having a significant impact even though sales data do not necessarily reflect antimicrobial use.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: USDA agreed with this recommendation. In August 2018, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) stated that it is working closely with USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and HHS' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop a framework for deciding when on-farm antimicrobial resistance investigative activities are warranted. In September 2019, according to APHIS officials, the lead agencies, including APHIS, FSIS, and CDC, have agreed that it is imperative that cross sector partners from a range of animal agriculture industries be included in developing the framework that was requested in GAO's final report. A framework for making decisions regarding on-farm antimicrobial resistance investigative activities simply will not work without including industry sector partners in the development of the framework, according to APHIS officials. Due to the logistics of getting all of the cross sector partners together, APHIS is unable to schedule the next meeting in the series to develop the Pre-Harvest Framework until December 2019. APHIS anticipates that it will take the remainder of fiscal year 2020 to work through additional meetings with partners and finalize this framework.
GAO-17-247, Feb 17, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that the department currently offers interactive manager/supervisor telework training to all supervisors, the completion of which is documented in the manager and supervisor training records. However, officials said this training was strongly encouraged but not required. In fiscal year 2019, telework training was added as a mandatory course for all managers and supervisors, the completion of which is documented in manager and supervisor training records and reported to departmental leadership. As of August 2020, the Department of Labor was developing and testing a telework tracking application system that will require and document completion of manager/supervisor telework training through the Department's internal learning development system before a supervisor can use the system to approve telework agreements. The Department of Labor anticipates the system will be ready for implementation in FY 2021. We will continue to follow up with the Department of Labor on this and will provide an update when available.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that the current policy requires supervisors to conduct an annual review of telework agreements to ensure the arrangement is current and the needs of the agency are being met. In October 2019, Department of Labor officials stated the department is revising its telework processes to include a defined procedure for managers/supervisors to document and report the annual reviews. As of August 2020, the Department of Labor was developing and testing a telework tracking application system that will require and document annual telework agreement recertification for all telework program participants and their supervisors to ensure a regular review of telework agreements. The Department of Labor anticipates the system will be ready for implementation in FY 2021. When we confirm that Labor has fully completed these actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter to GAO dated May 26, 2017, the Department of Labor stated that it will benchmark best practices used by other federal agencies to explore options for utilizing its existing telework agreement tracking system to facilitate more timely access to telework agreement data. As of October 2019, Labor is developing a telework tracking application to improve access to telework data and the quality of telework data reported by its agencies. It is projected this tracking application will be launched as part of a broader internal web-based collaborative platform in FY 2021. When we confirm that Labor has fully completed these actions, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: In a letter dated May 16, 2017, the acting director stated that OPM did not agree with the recommendation. While OPM recognizes the importance of data accuracy to effectively evaluate federal telework programs, OPM does not agree that the Telework Enhancement Act imposes any obligation on OPM to allocate significant resources necessary to validate telework data collected from agencies or that a year-over-year comparison of survey data is needed or advantageous to ensuring a reasonable and rigorous data analysis. We agree that OPM should not independently validate agency data, but OPM should take the steps necessary to identify and explain data outliers and limitations. Because OPM is the agency responsible for reporting telework data, OPM should ensure its annual reports to Congress include a clear discussion of data reliability limitations. Following up on data outliers and large year-to-year changes can help OPM identify data errors that could be corrected by agencies and provide OPM with the opportunity to discuss data limitations with agencies. Including such information clearly in the annual telework reports to Congress can make them more useful to Congress and to others. As of January 2020, OPM has not taken action on this recommendation. If we confirm that OPM does take action in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-159, Feb 16, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 4 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As of February 3, 2020, FNS stated that it has made revisions to the agency audit manual to meet the intent of the recommendation. In a section of the manual devoted to Cognizant and Awarding Agency Responsibilities (2 CFR 200.513), FNS is adding a bullet that states that the Federal awarding agency must "ensure that audits are completed and reports are received in a timely manner and in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 200.512(a)." FNS plans on releasing the full agency audit manual to FNS users in final by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. We believe that FNS's corrective actions will help FNS to meet the intent of our recommendation with regards to designing policies. However, to fully meet the intent of the recommendation, in addition to revising policies, FNS also needs to implement procedures to ensure staff are following the revised policies. We will assess these efforts once completed.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As of February 3, 2020, FNS stated that it has made revisions to the agency audit manual to meet the intent of the recommendation. In a section of the manual devoted to Cognizant and Awarding Agency Responsibilities (2 CFR 200.513), FNS stated that it is expanding upon an existing bullet that states that the Federal awarding agency must "issue a management decision on audit findings within six months after receipt of the audit report....". FNS indicated this section of the manual will be expanded to include the four elements that a management decision must clearly state in writing as prescribed in 2 CFR 200.521(a). FNS plans on releasing the full agency audit manual to FNS users in final by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. We believe that FNS's corrective actions will help FNS to meet the intent of our recommendation with regards to designing policies. However, to fully meet the intent of the recommendation, in addition to revising policies, FNS also needs to implement procedures to ensure staff are following the revised policies. We will assess these efforts once completed.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. As of February 3, 2020, FNS stated that it has made revisions to the agency audit manual to meet the intent of the recommendation. In a section of the manual devoted to Cognizant and Awarding Agency Responsibilities (2 CFR 200.513), FNS is adding a bullet stating that the cognizant agency is responsible for "developing a risk-based approach to manage high-risk and recurring single audit findings to identify problems so that adequate resources can be dedicated to address the problem." FNS plans on releasing the full agency audit manual to FNS users in final by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. We believe that FNS's corrective actions will partially help FNS to meet the intent of our recommendation with regards to designing policies. When designing policies, we believe FNS also needs to clearly provide guidance on the risk management strategy over high-risk and recurring single audit findings, including the steps to follow for identifying problem areas and setting priorities for addressing them. To fully meet the intent of the recommendation, in addition to revising policies, FNS also needs to implement procedures to ensure staff are following the revised policies. We will assess these efforts once completed.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development (RD) concurred with our recommendation. To address the GAO recommendation, in February 2020, RD stated that it has developed a disbursement report that will capture disbursements equal to or greater than $750,000 and is currently documenting that process and creating instructions for the program areas. RD indicated that it plans to complete these actions by June 30, 2020. We will assess these efforts once completed.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development (RD) concurred with our recommendation. To address the GAO recommendation, in February 2020, RD stated it has developed a Management Decision Manual template that the program areas will use and is currently creating instructions for the program areas. RD indicated that it plans to complete these actions by June 30, 2020. We will assess these efforts once completed.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development (RD) concurred with our recommendation. To address the GAO recommendation, in February 2020, RD stated that it has developed a process to rate each single audit finding. According to RD, the ratings will be tracked in an Access Database, where it will generate reports indicating reoccurring and high-risk findings by borrower and by program. RD indicated that it plans to complete these actions by June 30, 2020. We will assess these efforts once completed.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) stated that it did not agree with GAO's emphasis on high risk/recurring single audit findings. Nevertheless, in March 2019, HUD's CPD stated that it is working towards a redesigned model for analyzing risk as a basis for monitoring. In August 2020, HUD informed us that CPD is finalizing the beta test for the risk model. Although the risk model will be further defined and enhanced in fiscal year 2021 for fiscal year 2022, CPD plans to roll out the beta test of the risk model to develop the fiscal year 2021 risk rankings. Single audit will be one factor that is included in calculating the risk scores. CPD will validate and assess the results of the beta test and make adjustments as needed. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) agreed with this recommendation. On May 7, 2018, PIH stated that it had implemented a Risk Based Approach Tool designed to identify and manage high-risk and recurring single audit findings. The Risk Based Approach tool was intended to track and focus on audit findings reported as material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and was designed to determine the resources needed and available to assist in mitigating the audit findings. However, in March 2019, PIH informed us that in late 2018, PIH began to work toward repositioning goals, priorities and identification of key risk indicators. PIH stated that it is now focused on aligning risk indicators to the HUD and PIH priorities. PIH priorities for fiscal year 2019 include addressing Public Housing Authorities insolvency which may be identified through an Independent Public Accountant audit or through other means. PIH stated that it no longer uses the assessment tool that included over 100 risk indicators. PIH indicated that it has a revised risk mitigation framework proposal that will be presented to the Enterprise Risk Counsel in the near future. In fiscal year 2020, we have sent additional follow-up questions to the agency and are currently waiting for a response. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-85, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-9869
including 5 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. The Army stated that the Accountability and Audit Readiness Directorate has completed actions to enhance its current standard operating procedures to include (1) updating its corrective action plan (CAP) database and reporting tool, (2) documenting its reporting procedures, and (3) updating its CAP template to include additional elements recommended by the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. In addition, the Army stated that its policies and procedures include steps to incorporate external financial management-related audit findings assigned to the Accountability and Audit Readiness Directorate by the Internal Review Directorate and that the existing process the Army uses to prioritize findings and the related CAPs and to monitor the progress and status of CAPs has been documented. We reviewed Army's documentation that was provided in January 2020. Army's documentation did not show that it has a process for ensuring that all financial management related findings and recommendations are identified and tracked. To implement this recommendations Army needs to enhance their policies and procedures related to tracking and monitoring the status of these audit findings.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the Air Force stated that it continues to develop a process for identifying and tracking financial management-related findings and recommendations from all audit sources by updating its process guidance. In August 2019, we received draft guidance that Air Force is developing as guidance and procedures for a universe of financial management-related findings and recommendations. In January 2020, we also received a list of the Air Force deficiencies being tracked in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) database. After assessing the provided documentation, we found that the draft does not include procedures for identifying GAO, DODOIG, and Air Force Audit Agency (AFAA) findings and the database did not include deficiencies identified by those external auditors. As a result of our review of the documentation provided, we determined that the actions taken were not sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the Air Force stated that its Air Force Deficiency Remediation Tracking processes and guides were being refined. In December 2019, Air Force provided a document titled "NFR Prioritization Process." We found that this document included Air Force's priority categories. However, the document does not include information on determining the priority level or applying the priority levels when addressing the deficiencies. We also received a copy of Air Force's guide for the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) process dated July 2019. We found that this guide does not fully incorporate CAP development for deficiencies from all sources. Additionally, the guide does not provide information on the process for (1) determining resources and other requirements for remediating the deficiency, (2) conducting a cost benefit analysis, and (3) developing criteria for validating that the deficiency has been remediated. The guide also includes a template for conducting a root cause analysis. However, the instructions for conducting a root cause analysis are somewhat limited for determining the initial cause or underlying reason for the deficiency. Per the guide, the Air Force uses the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) database to monitor and report on Air Force's deficiencies and remediation CAP status. We obtained a listing of the NFRs and related CAPS in the database as of December 2019. We found that deficiencies from all audit sources were not included in the listing, only the independent public accountant's NFRs. The results of our review of a limited number of CAPs indicate that Air Force staff does not always comply with the Air Force's CAP requirements. As a result of our assessment of the Air Force documentation, we determined that the actions taken were not sufficient to close the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD stated that it solicits input on a bi-monthly basis, on critical capability corrective action plans (CAPs) at a summary level. This information is provided routinely at regularly scheduled FIAR Governance Board meetings. DOD also stated that an updated notice of finding and recommendation (NFR) form template is being developed and will be provided to the military services to use for reporting this information so that it will include the recommended standard data elements outlined in OMB Circular A-123 to provide greater transparency into the nature of remediation plans. DOD also stated that FIAR Guidance will be updated to explicitly state that military services should include the OMB recommended standard data elements in CAPs. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to provide documentation that shows that the military services are able to provide a summary of key information in the corrective action plans that at a minimum contains data elements recommended by the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. .
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD, the military services already provide summary-level updates on their critical capability corrective action plans (CAPs) at FIAR Governance Board meetings. It also stated that the template that is used to present CAPs to the FIAR Governance Board meetings at the summary level has been updated to align CAPs to critical capabilities. DOD still needs to address how all of the data elements from the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123 will be summarized or otherwise reported for all CAPs pertaining to critical capabilities across the Department. In addition, DOD stated that because the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) takes responsibility for maintaining, monitoring, and reporting on the status of CAPs for the service providers and other defense organizations and of DOD-wide issues, the Comptroller will also summarize this information. However, DOD has not clarified what information from the military services will be summarized. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to provide documentation that shows the Comptroller has prepared a consolidated CAP management summary on a bimonthly basis.
GAO-17-168, Feb 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-8612
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2017 we reported that the United States had revised its approach to statistical reporting to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about covered federal government procurement from an "award values" methodology to an actual "cumulative obligations" approach in October 2015. The "cumulative obligations" methodology resulted in a more accurate measure of covered federal procurement, but it introduced a 6-year delay in reporting. We found this reporting delay inconsistent with the 2014 WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) requirement of reporting within 2 years of the end of the reporting period. We recommended that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should, with appropriate experts in Commerce, Office of Management and Budget, and General Services Administration, improve the U.S. methodology for providing covered federal government procurement statistics to the WTO to ensure both accurate and more timely reporting, consistent with GPA requirements--for example, by providing preliminary estimates and updated values of covered federal procurement or by using an alternative methodology that bases measures of covered government procurement on actual annual obligations, if USTR determines that such an approach is consistent with WTO obligations. Following the issuance of our report, in December 2017 USTR reported that they had worked with other agencies to improve their methods. While they decided to continue to report statistics using the "cumulative obligations" methodology they decided to also report "partially reported" (preliminary) statistics to improve the timeliness of U.S. reporting. This preliminary data was to be based on the same data used in the "cumulative obligations" methodology but can be submitted within two years of the end of the reporting period and therefore comply with GPA statistical reporting obligations. USTR submitted preliminary statistics for FY 2015 on November 15, 2017; for FY 2016 on October 31, 2018; and for FY 2017 on October 29, 2019. USTR will later update these statistics to reflect the "final" total value in 2021. GAO will continue to monitor this recommendation until that time.
GAO-17-182, Feb 7, 2017
Phone: (404) 679-1875
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of 2/12/2020, awaiting additional evidence/clarification from DHS.
GAO-17-39, Feb 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that it will maintain its focus on the recruiting and retention pays for both the active and reserve components, and will continue to work with the Reserve Components to strengthen the collection of the remaining special and incentive pays. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken action on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that DOD does use key principles of effective human capital management, and although not articulated as GAO's principles, DOD's and GAO's principles share common goals and results. In addition, DOD stated that it will support the opportunity to review and improve upon the principles and methods to assess the efficiency of its S&I pay programs, and, where appropriate, will incorporate these principles in future DOD policy issuances and updates. In May 2018, DOD stated that it believed it was in compliance with this recommendation and that the action was complete. DOD stated that this assessment was based on our finding that most of the Department's S&I pay programs either met or partially met the key principles of effective human capital management. But our finding was on select pay programs. Further, DOD's response did not document what actions the Department has taken to ensure all programs fully meet the key principles. As of November 2019 DOD had not taken action on this recommendation. We continue to believe that fully implementing the key principles of effective human capital management that we identified would help DOD and the services to ensure that S&I pay programs are effectively designed and that resources are optimized for the greatest return on investment.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2017, DOD had submitted a proposal to conduct a study focused on aviation officers that will examine the military services' methodologies used to accomplish their retention goals to determine the primary reasons aviation officers remain or leave the service and the degree to which these reasons affect their retention decisions. According to DOD officials, a portion of the study will consider the interaction between monetary and non-monetary incentives such as duty assignments, flying opportunities, reduced administrative burdens, and quality of life. In May 2018, DOD stated that the Military Departments continue to utilize non-monetary incentives as their first approach to access and retain quality servicemembers. DOD added that these incentives consist of choice of career path, duty assignment, selective military training, educational benefits, as well as the career intermission program. DOD noted that the Army's Career Satisfaction Program is just one example of using non-monetary pay incentives to improve retention. According to DOD, this program increases the retention of Army officers at no additional cost to the Army by offering academy cadets and senior ROTC cadets the choice of occupational specialty and assignment location upon commissioning in exchange for extending their active duty service obligation for an additional 3 years. DOD also stated that the Navy currently uses both monetary and non-monetary incentives to retain its surface warfare officer (SWO) community to ensure it retains adequate numbers of officers to fill critical SWO Department Head positions in the rank of Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander. The Department concluded that it believes the recommendation is closed, as it has offered and continues to offer non-monetary incentives as part of its S&l pay program, and continues to encourage the use of non-monetary incentives as an alternative to cash incentives. While the programs DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that the services are responsible for developing their personnel requirements in order to meet individual service needs and that it has provided the services with the necessary staffing tools to recruit and retain servicemembers in the cybersecurity skill sets. DOD also noted that it is crucial for the services to retain their flexibility to utilize these pays and benefits to address service-specific shortfalls within their cybersecurity workforce and noted that it will assist the services in growing and maintaining their cybersecurity workforce through existing and future DOD policies. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that the services have responsibility for developing their manpower requirements and employing the necessary manpower tools, such as bonuses and incentives, to achieve their goals, including those for the cybersecurity workforce. DOD added that the current suite of special and incentive pays already provides the services the necessary authorities and flexibilities to access and retain servicemembers in their cybersecurity communities. DOD concluded that it believed their actions to address this recommendation were complete. We recognize that the services are responsible for their specific personnel requirements and that flexibility is important. However, as noted in our report, each military service has assigned cybersecurity personnel to military occupational specialties that include other types of personnel skill sets, such as intelligence or information technology. As a result, because the services offer SRBs by military occupational specialty, the services may award SRBs to specialties that include non-cybersecurity personnel for whom the SRB is unneeded. Therefore, we continue to believe that there are benefits to developing approaches to target cybersecurity personnel in non-designated cybersecurity fields and that this recommendation should remain open. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.
GAO-17-189, Jan 31, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS, FDA issued draft guidance (a document of frequently asked questions) in January of 2018 that describes the QIDP designation. However, this document is in draft form and has not yet been finalized. As of August 2020, FDA reported it is working to finalize this guidance this year. GAO will revisit this recommendation when the final guidance is issued.
GAO-17-191, Jan 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In the Bureau's March 2017 action plan, it reported that as the Census Bureau develops enhancements to the procedures and training for enumerators, it will reflect on what it has learned from 2016 Census Test experiences as well as from recommendations such as this. It reported a target completion of December 2018, following completion and analyses of the nonresponse follow-up operation for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. In January 2018, Bureau officials told us that leveraging enumerator collected information on the best time to conduct an interview would not be a part of questionnaire design's functionality for 2020 and will most likely rely on the system optimizer to determine the best time to contact a household. Bureau officials indicated they may push this recommendation out to 2030. During the 2018 Test, we continued to observe that enumerator notes were not being systematically reviewed by supervisors and managers, such that information such as office hours for apartment managers among other information we reported on was not being used by the operation. In June 2019, the Bureau informed us that it had added functionality to the enumerator device for enumerators to alert supervisors of case notes of "high importance" and was revising training to explain its use. Additionally, in December 2019, the Bureau shared documentation that reiterated the importance of enumerators reviewing prior case notes but clarified that enumerators should not expect their supervisors to regularly review those case notes. In April 2020, Bureau officials indicated that it was not likely that the Bureau would revise CFS training to systematically review case notes for the 2020 cycle, though we are following up with the Bureau to see if this can be done given the revised census time frames stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. To fully implement this recommendation for 2020 and for future fieldwork, the Bureau needs to make better use of the information collected by enumerators during interview attempts about when to make additional attempts, such as during reported working hours of property managers for large multi-unit structures that house a large number of non-respondents.
GAO-17-105, Jan 24, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA stated that the Office of Labor Management Relations (LMR) revised its policy in December 2016 to include specific directions to human resource offices to begin recording official time in the VA Time and Attendance System (VATAS) once VATAS has been implemented at their respective facilities. The formal concurrence process, which precedes the final publication of the policy, is ongoing. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency provides documentation of the revised policy.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA stated that the Office of Human Resources and Administration is in the process of developing a memo directing facilities to rely on time and attendance records when calculating the amount of official time used at the facility level. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency has provided documentation that they have completed this effort.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA stated that the Office of Labor Management Relations (LMR) will transition from using the LMR Official Time Tracking System to collect and compile data on official time and will coordinate with the Financial Services Center to use VATAS to create a report on the agency-wide use of official time. VA is still in the process of rolling out VATAS and standardizing the input of official time requests within VATAS. We will consider closing this recommendation when the agency has demonstrated efforts to use VATAS for capturing the use of official time and producing reports.
GAO-17-76, Jan 19, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it will make clarifications in the next revision of DOD Instruction 7700.18 to clarify the types of privately financed major construction projects that should be reported through the process outlined in the instruction. In July 2020 an official from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy) said that DOD had completed a draft update of the instruction that included language implementing GAO's recommendation. The official also stated that DOD Instruction 7700.18 is interrelated with other DOD guidance which is also being updated. DOD plans to complete the updates to all the relevant policies by June 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that there was already an official, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, responsible for developing policies related to gifts of real property, including major construction. However, DOD has not formally assigned responsibility to the Under Secretary (now the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment) for developing DOD-wide policy on reporting gifts of major construction not covered by the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that Congress has provided a statutory framework for the department to accept gifts, including gifts of construction, without stipulating any reporting requirements. However, this is inconsistent with DOD Instruction 7700.18, which states that construction projects funded by donations are subject to reporting to Congress. The military departments have been accepting gifts of major construction and reporting some of them to Congress while not reporting others. If DOD does not take action to clarify its policy on reporting such gifts, Congress is likely to continue receiving inconsistent and incomplete information, and to lack an explanation of the scope of the information it is receiving. This in turn may impair Congressional oversight over such projects and their potential effects on future maintenance funding requirements since some projects will not be brought to Congress' attention. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
GAO-17-187, Jan 9, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS provided us with information on its efforts to share information about the temporary reassignment authority throughout the department. However, it is not clear that HHS has routed the temporary reassignment standard operation procedures, which provides instructions on how to request use of the authority and documentation and reporting requirements, with the HHS agencies that are likely to be primarily affected.
GAO-17-30, Dec 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA partially agreed with GAO's December 2016 recommendation. As of January 2020, VA has made progress toward addressing this recommendation. VA officials described a new pilot performance management system that is being used to develop an enterprise-wide performance management solution. VA officials also stated that they were developing policy revisions for performance management that are scheduled to be completed later this year. These actions, when fully implemented, should help VA make meaningful distinctions in performance and hold employees accountable.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partially agreed with GAO's December 2016 recommendation and as of January 2020 has made progress toward implementing the recommendation. For example, VA officials told GAO that they implemented a pilot project to develop a standard IT performance management system that started with about 12,000 employees and has expanded to about 67,00 employees. They told GAO that they are currently in the process of developing an enterprise-wide performance management IT solution. Activities such as finalizing a business case and analyzing alternatives are still in progress. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress on this effort. Successful planning and implementation of a modern IT system should help VA capture reliable, timely, department-wide employee performance information and may also help VA realize cost savings by eliminating inefficient paper-based procedures.
GAO-17-9, Dec 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum requiring agencies to develop a reform plan to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, the Deputy Chief Management Officer issued a memorandum requiring each DOD component--including the military departments--to conduct a thorough review of business operations and to propose reform initiatives to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability within their respective organizations. For those initiatives selected for implementation, components were required to provide additional information on their initiatives, to include performance goals and measures. DOD submitted its agency reform plan to OMB in September 2017, which included military department-level reform initiatives. According to an Office of the Chief Management Officer (OCMO) official, OCMO was in the process of incorporating the military department-level reform initiatives into weekly updates to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and monthly reports to the Secretary of Defense. Once the military department-level reform initiatives are incorporated into these regular reporting mechanisms, we believe DOD's efforts will meet the intent of our recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD has not provided additional information related to this recommendation.
GAO-17-97, Dec 6, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation and in May 2008, the Corps reported that it developed implementation guidance for (1) nonfederal sponsor-led feasibility studies (ER-1165-2-209, dated February 4, 2016) and (2) construction projects (ER-1155-2-504, dated July 12, 2017). The Corps also reported that it established a Project Delivery Team to develop documented guidance for accurate recording of transactions and other relevant information related to nonfederal sponsor-led federal water resources projects, but it has not yet determined an estimated completion date for this effort. In August 2019, DOD informed GAO that the Civil Works Integration Division Deputy was evaluating the Corps' corrective action plan for the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Corps' progress.
GAO-17-110, Nov 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB is finalizing finalized expanded guidance and procedures on coding whistleblower data. MSPB is committed to ensuring that procedures are in place for identifying and using appropriate whistleblower codes; however, MSPB is limited by its various legacy applications with regard to the improvements related to data entry that can be implemented at this time. MSPB currently is in the process of designing new core business applications that will incorporate appropriate data quality, integrity, and accountability measures to further improve its data management practices. Until the new case management system is in production in FY 2020 or early FY 2021, MSPB remains committed to utilizing the resources necessary to ensure the accuracy of its reported data. To achieve this objective, experienced attorneys reviewed, validated, and, where necessary, corrected agency whistleblowing data prior to public release in FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. MSPB is committed to this extra layer of review for FY 2019, and will continue to evaluate how to achieve this objective given other workload and available resources. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB stated that it completed drafting the data integrity study mentioned in our previous response, looking at the current processes and integrity of case-related data as a whole throughout the agency. As explained above and highlighted in MSPB's FY 2018 Annual Report, MSPB's initiative to design and configure new core business applications currently is underway, and the findings in the study are integral to incorporating the appropriate data integrity processes, including quality checks and controls, into these new applications. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
GAO-17-88, Nov 22, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2018, FAA officials said that they were working towards implementing the recommendation, but did not have documented efforts at this time and do not have an estimated completion date.
GAO-17-51, Nov 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to adopt government-wide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies. In June 2018, OMB issued guidelines requiring federal agencies to submit a 5-year plan for implementing the Act. In November 2018, DOE submitted a draft implementation plan to OMB that described DOE's strategy for developing a DOE program management policy. In particular, its draft plan stated that DOE has established a working group to help develop the department's program management policy. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to finalize and issue its program management policy. We will continue to monitor DOE's actions.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue regulations identifying key program management skills and competencies, as well as to establish a new career path for program managers within an agency. In April and May of 2019, OPM issued guidance documents that identify competencies for program managers and update the job series classification for program managers. OPM officials also said that they have drafted a career path for program managers, which will highlight training and skills needed to progress in a program management career. In addition, DOE stated that it is holding working group meetings to develop strategies for program management training and certification. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to continue working with OPM and finalize its training program for program managers.
GAO-17-48, Nov 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 5 priority recommendations
Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had initiated two projects that would allow a more efficient evaluation of multiple scenarios, including assessing trade-offs associated with different levels of scenario severity. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on these projects, which remain in progress. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and any additional actions it takes that may be responsive to our recommendation.
Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had initiated two projects that would allow a more efficient evaluation of multiple scenarios. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on these projects, which remain in progress. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and any additional actions it takes that may be responsive to our recommendation.
Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated multiple projects to fully respond to our recommendation, several of which were now complete. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the remaining projects, which remain in various stages of completion. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and, once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated a project to fully respond to our recommendation. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the project, but as of February 2020, had not provided documentation fully supporting implementation of a process consistent with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of this project, and we will update the status of this recommendation once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions.
Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated a project to fully respond to our recommendation. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the project, but as of February 2020, had not provided documentation fully supporting implementation of a process consistent with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of this project, and we will update the status of this recommendation once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions.
GAO-17-4, Nov 15, 2016
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with this recommendation believing it to be unnecessary because it is already providing accurate information. Specifically, DOD noted that the information provided in several documents GAO reviewed is accurately based on statute whereas Education's updated requirement to automatically apply the cap is based on policy that could change in the future. Moreover, the automated process applies only to federal and commercial FFEL student loans in contrast to other types of debt. DOD said that providing information based on statute rather than policy would cause less confusion and was a better approach than what we recommend. However, our report noted that Education formalized the automated process through federal regulations, effective July 2016, which legally require servicers to use this process for all federal and commercial FFEL loans. In addition, DOD said it was unable to verify whether DOD's Military OneSource website inaccurately states that the SCRA rate cap does not apply to commercial FFEL loans. However, our searches of the website still turned up this inaccuracy. DOD said it would look into a means of verifying website information but that in the meantime, it is satisfied that its training provides correct information. Given that Military OneSource is a key source of information for servicemembers and that some documents DOD provided state that the SCRA rate cap does not apply to student loans, we continue to believe that servicemembers are not always receiving accurate and up-to-date information. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that it continues to disagree with this recommendation based on the rationale above. DOD did not provide an update for 2020.
Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that its current package of proposed legislative changes provides benefits to servicemembers with all kinds of loans, including private student loans. Rather than requiring servicemembers to submit written notice and a copy of military orders, they need only give oral or written notice of eligibility for the cap to their creditors. Creditors would then have to search the Department of Defense's records to verify the servicemembers' military service and apply the SCRA interest rate cap, when applicable. DOJ believes that these changes would significantly benefit all servicemembers with loans while providing a uniform standard for all types of creditors. The department added that it will consider its proposed changes to SCRA in future legislative proposals and plans to obtain feedback from stakeholders on how to improve SCRA's protections for servicemembers. However, as stated in our report, servicemembers with private student loans would still need to be aware of the rate cap in order to give notice, whether written or oral. Therefore, we encourage DOJ to consider updating its current proposal to require use of the automatic eligibility check by all student loan lenders and servicers. Not only would this ensure that servicemembers with private student loans receive a benefit for which they are eligible, but also that the interest rate cap is applied consistently across all types of student loans. DOJ did not provide an update for 2020.
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stated that it is committed to working with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal financial regulators, when possible, to facilitate oversight of SCRA compliance and that it will support all relevant federal agencies in using their respective authorities to identify and address SCRA violations as efficiently and effectively as possible. While CFPB coordinates with DOJ and other federal regulators in general, there is still no single agency authorized to enforce SCRA compliance among nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers, and no entity is conducting onsite supervisory reviews of these lenders and servicers. In addition, while CFPB may refer complaints from servicemembers about the SCRA rate cap for private student loans to DOJ and other financial regulators, we believe this does not constitute routine, proactive oversight and also presumes servicemembers are aware of the SCRA rate cap. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when the bureau has provided evidence of actions it has taken to facilitate routine oversight of SCRA compliance for all nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers. CFPB did not provide an update for 2020.
Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) believes that it is in full compliance with this recommendation and that the four federal financial regulators do not have statutory authority to examine nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers unaffiliated with a depository institution. DOJ stated that it already coordinates extensively with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the financial regulators concerning SCRA compliance through such mechanisms as referrals from CFPB for any SCRA-related violations and access to its consumer complaint database, and regular meetings with CFPB, and that it will continue to be built upon these efforts. While these mechanisms are commendable, GAO believes they do not constitute exercising routine oversight of nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers who are not affiliated with a depository institution. We believe that additional interagency coordination, including working with CFPB to seek additional statutory authority, as needed, is necessary to ensure routine SCRA compliance. DOJ did not provide an update for 2020.
GAO-17-43, Nov 10, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2013, an executive order established the White House Council on Native American Affairs. However, the Council did not convene under the current Presidential administration until mid-2020. We will follow-up with DOE in fiscal year 2021 regarding this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2013, an executive order established the White House Council on Native American Affairs. The Tribal Energy Subgroup's efforts were to focus on creating a coordinated effort among the federal agencies to promote energy and energy infrastructure development in Indian Country. The Council convened under the current administration in mid-2020. We believe Interior should still pursue this collaboration and agreements with these agencies and will monitor the agency's progress.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2019 BIA officials stated that they had begun to identify the critical skills and competencies necessary for select Indian energy-related occupations. BIA officials told us that, once complete, agency officials will be able to use the catalog of necessary skills and competencies to identify training needs for existing staff. To fully implement this recommendation, BIA needs to 1) assess the critical skills and competencies needed to fulfill BIA's responsibility related to energy development and 2) identify potential gaps. As of January 2020, BIA is in the early stages of identifying necessary skills and competencies, and BIA officials told us that they expect to complete the catalog of skills and competencies by the end of fiscal year 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: Our recommendation was based on our findings that the workforce composition of agency offices is not regularly reviewed to provide reasonable assurance that it is consistent with BIA's mission and individual tribes' priorities and goals. In December 2019, BIA officials told us that they were in the early stages of developing a process to regularly assess workforce composition at agency offices. BIA officials said that they drafted a data collection tool to collect workforce composition information, and that BIA would be developing a system to collect and analyze the data on an annual basis. According to BIA officials, BIA intends to use the workforce composition data to identify BIA's staffing needs and inform BIA budget requests. BIA officials said that they aim to complete the documented process for assessing workforce composition by the end of February 2020.
GAO-17-38, Nov 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. In 2017, DOD officials told us that they would include information about assumptions, a methodology, cost estimates, and timelines for achieving alternative reductions, but they were unable to provide any documentation of progress made.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD has not completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-26, Oct 20, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of August 2018, we are in the process of following up with the department to determine the current status.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on the draft report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of August 2018, we are in the process of following up with the department to determine the current status.
GAO-17-15, Oct 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In fiscal year 2020, the Senate passed S.4104, which included language to address the recommendation. In the context of the Do Not Pay (DNP) working system, the bill, if enacted, would authorize comparison of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) full death file with personally identifiable information reviewed through the working system and would allow redisclosure of such comparison of information to any federal or state agency authorized to use the working system. As of July 15, 2020, the House has not introduced a related bill for fiscal year 2020. Additionally, in February 2020, the administration released its President's 2021 Budget, which proposes legislation to allow the DNP Business Center full access to the SSA full death file. This proposal would include the Department of the Treasury and the SSA working together to determine the most efficient manner to make full death information available for use in preventing improper payment and fraud. We will continue to monitor congressional legislation to address this recommendation. .
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB agreed with the concept of monitoring mechanisms and will continue to work with agencies to reduce improper payments and encourage agencies to establish goals to improve payment accuracy that will be monitored and evaluated by OMB. In fiscal year 2019, OMB provided us a status update on July 31, 2019, stating that Treasury does this monitoring and reports updates to OMB on a quarterly basis and that monitoring will occur in conjunction with the President's Management Agenda. In August 2020, Treasury provided us examples of reports that it provides to OMB to assist OMB with evaluating agency use of the DNP working system. We plan to meet with OMB to discuss how it uses these reports and will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with the concept of ensuring that data are reliable and will consider the feasibility of a process to compare agency submissions to available sources to reasonably assure that agency-reported information on use of the Do Not Pay working system is reliable. OMB provided us a status update on July 1, 2019, stating that OMB will work with Treasury to determine feasibility of doing this review and establishing a process during fiscal year 2019. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreed with ensuring the completeness of data and will continue to work with agencies and the Chief Financial Officer community to ensure that agency-reported information on the use of the Do Not Pay (DNP) working system is complete. In fiscal year 2019, OMB provided us a status update on July 1, 2019, stating that this recommendation was addressed in OMB's Circular A-136. Additionally, we met with OMB officials on July 31, 2019. During the meeting, OMB officials informed us that the OMB Circular A-136, Section II.4.5 (bullet 3) (dated June 28, 2019) states that "Agencies should provide a brief narrative of the reduction in improper payments that is attributable to the DNP Initiative, as applicable. See OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Part V for a thorough overview of the roles and responsibilities of agencies to use centralized data sources such as the Treasury Working System and other government databases to prevent improper payments." We have reviewed OMB Circular A-136 and confirmed that the circular does contain the statements above. However, we do not believe that the OMB Circular A-136 meets the intent of our recommendation. GAO issued its recommendation, in part, because GAO found that OMB guidance does not indicate whether agencies should report on all uses of the DNP working system, including those outside payment integration that the DNP working system does not track. For this reason, GAO report concluded that without complete and reliable data and clear guidance on what information agencies should report, OMB cannot effectively monitor and evaluate the use of the DNP working system. Therefore, we do not believe that the OMB Circular A-136 sufficiently clarifies whether agencies should report on their uses of all of the functionalities of the DNP working system in their agency financial reports. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-17-5, Oct 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2019, HHS told us that CMS completed an analysis to determine which measures-from the core measure sets that CMS and private payers have agreed to use-are feasible to develop as electronic clinical quality measures. Further, in April 2019, CMS officials told us they will consider developing new electronic clinical quality measures where appropriate and feasible to fill future measure needs or gaps identified by the Core Quality Measures Collaborative (CQMC). However, we determined that the actions did not fully address the recommendation because they do not include efforts to work with ONC to prioritize their development of electronic clinical quality measures for the CQMC core measure sets. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2019, HHS told us that CMS had conducted an assessment of the impact of selected measures used in its quality programs and has linked key component of that assessment to some meaningful measure areas that CMS has identified as priorities. However, this document did not include elements of a comprehensive plan--such as setting timelines-for how to target its development of new, more meaningful quality measures that will promote greater alignment. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-17-122, Oct 12, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. Subsequently, in September 2018, DOT rescinded the ECP brake rule. As a result, DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not intend to create a plan to collect data from railroads' use of ECP brakes.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. DOT subsequently rescinded the ECP brake rule in September 2018. As a result, this recommendation is currently no longer relevant and DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not plan to implement this regulation.
GAO-17-127, Oct 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2700
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM agreed with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM told us it will establish a plan to make payroll data available through analytical tools such as FedScope no later than the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM will need to improve the availability of payroll data-either from the existing EHRI system or the new employee digital record-by ensuring the data are prepared and made available for analytics research.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OPM agreed with the recommendation. In December 2018, OPM reported that it plans to begin follow-up efforts with agencies and shared service providers on payroll data errors and anomalies and to notify data providers of problems. To fully implement the recommendation, OPM will need to follow up with shared services centers and agencies regarding issues identified with the payroll data they submit to EHRI. These steps will help ensure the quality of historical and current payroll data. They will also ensure that system detected errors are resolved and do not compound over time.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM concurred with our recommendation, but has not yet developed a plan for integrating payroll into the larger suite of EHRI databases.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: While OPM concurred with our recommendation, the agency has not evaluated or implemented, for Payroll data, the control activities and edit checks that are currently used to support the reliability of the other EHRI datasets.
GAO-16-827, Sep 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Commerce and NOAA agreed with this recommendation. In October 2019, NOAA provided GAO with a written update on actions taken in response to this recommendation, including the development of agency-wide metrics for the NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy. In September 2020, NOAA informed GAO that it plans to update the performance metrics for the regional action plans to include our key attributes in 2021. We will continue to monitor NOAA's progress on this effort and will review the updated performance metrics to assess the extent to which the agency has addressed our recommendation.
GAO-16-810, Sep 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has made progress in finalizing the update to its acquisition regulations and manual. In August 2020, VA reported that 31 of the 41 parts in its new acquisition regulations had been issued as draft or final rules. The remainder are at an earlier stage of the rulemaking process. VA also stated that it remains on track to release the final VA Acquisition Regulations in April 2021.
GAO-16-787, Sep 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and described actions being taken to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they were beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan and that Field Collection was chosen as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. In September 2020, IRS officials provided us draft program and case selection objectives and said they expected to complete actions to implement the recommendation in Fall 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and outlined planned actions to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they were beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan and that Field Collection was selected as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. In September 2020, IRS officials provided us draft program and case selection objectives and said they expected to complete actions to implement the recommendation in Fall 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and outlined planned actions to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they were beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan and that Field Collection was selected as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. Since program and case selection objectives are necessary before appropriate risk management systems can be established, in September 2020, IRS officials said they expected to complete actions to implement program and case selection objectives in Fall 2020 but provided no anticipated completion date for actions to identify and analyze potential risks to those objectives and related risk management actions.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and described actions it will take to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they are beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan. IRS selected Field Collection as one of the pilot programs for this initiative which would include actions to address this recommendation. In September 2020, IRS officials said they had revised the Internal Revenue Manual to guide group managers on elements to consider in selecting cases. We will update the status of IRS's actions to implement the recommendation after review of any documentation IRS provides.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and outlined planned actions to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they are beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan. IRS selected Field Collection as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. According to IRS officials, this pilot effort is ongoing and includes consideration of how the agency will address this recommendation. In September 2020, we met with IRS officials to discuss the status of actions to implement this recommendation but no anticipated completion date was provided.
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non-concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2020, DOD had not taken any action to implement the recommendation. DOD stated that it agreed that including additional fuel consumption detail could be useful information, but that it would be difficult and labor intensive to implement a system to separate base from OCO data for several reasons, including its use of legacy financial management systems that cannot easily distinguish between base and OCO execution data.
GAO-16-406, Sep 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.
GAO-16-700, Sep 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, GAO recommended that CMS improve the accessibility and reliability of SNF expenditure data, thereby making it easier for public stakeholders to locate and use the data. The agency concurred with this recommendation in 2016 and stated that it would review the feasibility of increasing the accessibility of this data. However, in August 2017, HHS told GAO that it now believes that the cost of implementing this recommendation would outweigh its benefits. HHS confirmed in July 2019 that its position on this recommendation has not changed. GAO continues to hold that data on SNFs' relative expenditures should be readily accessible to the public to ensure transparency in SNF expenditures.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, GAO recommended that CMS take steps to ensure the accuracy and completeness of SNF expenditure data. However, the agency did not concur with this recommendation. HHS reported in 2016 that the amount of time and resources to verify the accuracy and completeness of SNF expenditure data could be substantial, without assurance of benefit to the agency and the public. However, during the course of our work, GAO found that CMS uses this expenditure data to update overall SNF payment rates, in addition to more general purposes. GAO continues to believe that CMS should take steps to ensure reliable expenditure data are accurate and complete. As of July 2019, the agency continues to non-concur with this recommendation.
GAO-16-616, Sep 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2623
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: National Institutes of Health: Office of Management: Office of Acquisition and Logistics Management: Office of Acquisition Management and Policy: Division of Financial Advisory Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendations. In response, HHS stated that National Institute of Health's Division of Financial Advisory Services (DFAS) will establish a mechanism for tracking key milestones in the indirect cost rate-setting process. NIH-DFAS has initiatives underway that include moving from paper to electronic submissions of indirect cost proposals and developing a replacement to its Commercial Rate Agreement Distribution Services website. DFAS is looking into the feasibility of incorporating key milestones into these two major initiatives. NIH-DFAS is currently working with a contractor to develop a web based system that will establish a tracking system to account for when indirect cost proposal are due from organizations. The original initiative to enable the electronic submission of indirect cost proposals was modified to incorporate this new requirement. NIH-DFAS anticipates the planned date for implementation of this system to be October 1, 2017. As of February 4, 2020, this recommendation is still open because DFAS does not have the "proposal due date" and "extension due date" data fields activated in eFLow. DFAS is looking into adding those enhancements and hope to have these updates implemented by June 30, 2020. On July 8th, 2020, NIH-DFAS notified us that they plan to update us with the status of this recommendation by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.
GAO-16-758, Sep 1, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, HUD noted that it is in the process of finalizing written guidance which will document the agency's expectations regarding the supportive services requirement for Section 202 properties. HUD plans to finalize the guidance and post it on its website by May 2018. In July 2019, HUD noted that it posted guidance related to service coordinators on its website in 2018. The guidance describes the roles and responsibilities of service coordinators as well is reporting policies related to budget-based service coordinators. As of October 2019, HUD noted that it is drafting guidance that includes information on identifying and monitoring stand-alone Section 202 properties. This recommendation will remain open until HUD can demonstrate providing guidance to HUD staff on (1) identifying stand-alone Section 202 properties, and (2) monitoring the supportive services requirement for various types of Section 202 properties, including properties without service coordinators and stand-alone Section 202 properties. In December 2019, we requested further information from HUD and will continue to follow up on the agency's progress toward implementing this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, HUD noted that it had implemented a pilot program in 2017 which connected the information systems that some Section 202 properties use to record information on their service coordinator programs to a "grant reporting framework." In February 2018, HUD staff told us that all Section 202 properties with Service Coordinators would be required to use the new grant reporting framework in 2018, and that the new framework included edit checks and other mechanisms designed to improve the reliability of the data reported. In July 2019, HUD noted that they are continuing work on the pilot program and have not analyzed the data yet. They also stated that the pilot includes processes to help ensure the reliability of the data. In October 2019, HUD stated that the pilot ended in FY 2018 and the new grant reporting framework became a national reporting requirement for all Multifamily service coordinator programs (grant-funded and budget-based) in FY 2019. This recommendation will remain open until HUD develops and implements policies and procedures for (1) verifying the accuracy of a sample of performance information, and (2) analyzing the performance information collected. In December 2019, we requested further information from HUD and will continue to follow up on the agency's progress toward implementing this recommendation.
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration launched an updated version of Performance.gov. Our updated analysis of information presented on the site in August 2020 found that it does not meet all requirements. However, OMB continues to take action to address this recommendation. For example, Performance.gov does not include a required inventory of federal programs. In July 2020, OMB reported that it is working with agencies to address this requirement. Beginning with the fiscal year 2021 federal budget cycle, OMB and agencies plan to merge implementation of existing web-based reporting of performance and spending data to provide a more coherent picture of federal programs and activities. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-16-642, Aug 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6412
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) are taking steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in January and March 2017, HHS, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), issued updated select agent regulations and guidance that included clear definitions of inactivation and a validated inactivation procedure that are consistent across the Federal Select Agent Program. Additionally, HHS stated in December 2016 that NIH will consider providing clear and consistent definitions of inactivation in future guidance that is harmonized with the select agent regulations. Moreover, NIH and CDC told us they plan to include a new appendix in the revised Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories manual that specifically addresses the development, validation, and implementation of inactivation protocols, which they anticipate releasing in June 2020, according to a CDC official.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), issued Federal Select Agent Program guidance on the inactivation of select agents and toxins. According to HHS, this guidance is intended to provide additional information to regulated entities to assist them in meeting new requirements for rendering samples with select agents as non-viable. HHS also stated that the Federal Select Agent Program will continue to work with other federal agencies to ensure that the federal government is addressing inactivation in a consistent manner. In addition, according to HHS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will consider providing clear and consistent guidance related to inactivation that is harmonized with the Federal Select Agent Program as appropriate. As of April 2020, NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were in the process of revising the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories manual to include a new appendix that addresses the development, validation, and implementation of inactivation protocols. HHS plans to release the updated manual in June 2020, according to a CDC official.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated in March 2017 that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are in the process of revising the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories manual to include a new appendix that addresses inactivation methods, including guidance on documenting the shipment of inactivated material. HHS plans to release the updated manual in June 2020, according to a CDC official.
GAO-16-686, Aug 26, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) partially concurred with this recommendation, but does not intend to directly issue guidance as recommended. As of June 2020, OMB has not provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In response to our report, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation; however, DOD subsequently concurred with the recommendation and is taking steps to implement it. The department stated that the issuance of an updated Cyber Incident Handling guidance is on track to be completed and coordinated in the third quarter of fiscal year 2018. As of June 2020, it has not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of State (State) concurred with this recommendation. However, as of June 2020, the department has not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. When we receive additional evidence from State, we will review it to determine whether the department has addressed the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (DOT) concurred with the recommendation and is currently updating its Cybersecurity Policy. The Department plans to be complete by June 29, 2019. As of June 2020, the department has not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. Upon receiving additional evidence from DOT, we will review it to determine whether the department has addressed the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Transportation (DOT) concurred with the recommendation and is currently updating its Cybersecurity Policy. The Department plans to be complete by June 29, 2019. As of June 2020, the department has not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. Upon receiving additional evidence from DOT, we will review it to determine whether the department has addressed the recommendation.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Comments: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) concurred with our recommendation. As of June 2020, NASA stated that the agency is working to update the relevant policy to address this recommendation, but the update is taking longer than expected; NASA expects the policy to be updated and the review process to be completed by November 30, 2020. We will examine the evidence when NASA provides it.
GAO-16-768, Aug 24, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3149
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of May 2020, State had taken some steps to coordinate with OMB and USAID to improve the quality of data reported for ForeignAssistance.gov. Notably, in May 2020, State and USAID submitted a joint report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate the two federal websites reporting foreign assistance spending--ForeignAssistance.gov (managed by State) and explorer.usaid.gov (managed by USAID). As part of the plan, State and USAID will establish a joint data governance structure to reduce discrepancies in data, bolster the capacity of agencies to submit data, and ensure the accuracy and quality of data. Once the governance structure is finalized, they will send a copy to GAO. GAO will then review this information to assess if it sufficiently addresses GAO's 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-16-636, Aug 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, the Army had taken some steps to improve its guidance, as GAO recommended in August 2016, but did not plan to fully address the recommendation until 2021. Officials stated that the Army established target usage rates for existing virtual training devices and issued guidance and tracking tools for recording device usage. However, the Army had not modified the guidance, cited in GAO's August 2016 report, to require that training developers consider the amount of time available to train with or expected usage rates of new virtual training devices. According to Army officials, they will implement GAO's recommendation in a planned update to guidance on the justification and validation of new virtual training devices scheduled for 2021. By updating this guidance, the Army will have the information it requires to evaluate the amount of virtual training capabilities needed to achieve training tasks and proficiency goals during operational training.
GAO-16-710, Aug 11, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In an October 7, 2016, letter the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said he agreed with GAO's recommendation to assess situations that might warrant the use of the enhanced procurement authority and, should specific circumstances be identified for use of the authority, NNSA would develop a process for its use. The assessment would include an examination of resources to support use of the authority. NNSA would work with other Department of Energy organizations as appropriate in conducting the assessment. NNSA officials said they submitted the assessment to the congressional committees in March 2020. We requested a copy of the assessment and will update the status of this recommendation after we receive and review it.
GAO-16-656, Jul 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had collaborated through an IT technical assessment initiative, identifying four primary financial management modernization initiatives remaining from the New Core Program. In July 2020, HUD officials, including the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, provided a roadmap that defined a high-level depiction of the financial management systems anticipated in the future state. However, the department had not yet completed more detailed plans that (1) identify operations that must be performed and who must perform them and (2) explain where and how operations are to be carried out. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization. As of July 2020, the department had begun taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, HUD planned to integrate loan and property management into its current financial management shared service and had begun planning for how to modernize its budget formulation and cost accounting systems. For the budget formulation effort, HUD had developed high-level plans for the scope of the program, planned an implementation schedule, and estimated on the cost for implementation and operating and maintaining the system for two years. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In March 2017, the department reported that the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Information Officer intended to partner on future departmental financial management systems modernization efforts to fully document requirements and trace requirements to the functionality in the modernized system. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. As of July 2020, HUD was in the early phases of planning for modernization in these areas. According to officials from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the department intended to address this recommendation for budget formulation modernization by developing applicable plans and artifacts for managing requirements from the department's project planning and management framework. However, that effort has not yet started. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. Since 2016, HUD has revised its IT governance boards, which provide oversight of all its IT investments, including financial management initiatives, several times. While the department has not yet completed those improvement efforts, HUD updated its project planning and management framework to tailor requirements and artifacts for different program types. According to an official from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, updates to the requirements for shared services projects incorporated lessons learned from the New Core program. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. Officials from both offices have described improvements in their coordination and collaboration on efforts to plan for modernization. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions to ensure that planned improvements to governance and oversight mechanisms are effectively implemented and institutionalized.
GAO-16-620, Jul 27, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that the agency reviewed, in detail, the Orion integrated cost/schedule and risk analysis methodology and determined the rigor to be a sufficient basis for the agency commitments. In November 2019, Orion program officials told us that in response to a recent policy change, the program office will update its joint confidence level analysis when the program has its Key Decision Point D review. This review occurs before the program enters the system assembly integration and test, and launch phase and is not scheduled to occur until December 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide evidence that it updated its joint confidence level analysis when the Orion program holds its Key Decision Point D review.
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-16-548, Jul 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, HHS submitted its action plan to address GAO's recommendations. At that time, HHS stated the agency was reviewing its internal policies and procedures related to the hiring of special government employees not serving on boards to identify policy options that might improve data reliability. In January 2017, the Office of Government Ethics issued its Ethics Program Review of HHS and commented on ongoing and planned efforts by HHS to address challenges associated with identifying Special Government Employees who do not serve on federal advisory committees. Ongoing efforts include internal coordination between the Office of General Counsel-Ethics Division and human resource officials to implement new requirements based on 5 CFR part 2638. We are following up with HHS to determine the status of actions on the new requirements. As of September 2019, HHS has not responded to our requests for an update on their actions to respond to this recommendation. In May 2020, HHS noted that its Office of Human Resources has been responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore has not been able to provide an update on this recommendation. HHS expects to provide us with an update in July 2020. We contacted the agency for an update and are awaiting a response as of September 1, 2020.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation. EPA also stated that its vision for grants management includes having grant recipients submit performance reports and other information to the agency through a web-based portal. The portal would incorporate capabilities such as key word searches to allow for easier access to performance report information. 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: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will apply it, where appropriate and cost effective, to program-specific databases, not only the Office of Water databases. EPA noted that not all data from program-specific databases may be appropriate for direct electronic transfer to the national performance system; some individual grant data may need to be analyzed before being rolled up into national data. As of December 2018, EPA officials said that continued work on this recommendation is dependent upon EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer's deployment of a new performance tracking system and individual program funds for developing systems that interact with it. As of April 2020, GAO is following up with EPA on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to the implementation guidance for the Environmental Results Order (directive). In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing environmental results directive may be superseded or incorporated into a different policy as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. 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: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to existing policy. In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing policies may be superseded or incorporated into different policies as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. 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: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation. However, EPA emphasized that identifying and deploying appropriate data quality controls is a long-term effort subject to budgetary considerations, completion of its new grants management system, and extensive collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. EPA officials said that the agency 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.
GAO-16-583, Jul 12, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, an Army Medical Command official stated that the Warrior Transition Unit manpower model is under review by the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency and that the scheduled date for the release of the review is unknown.
GAO-16-559, Jul 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, BLM is reviewing comments from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor on the revised grazing handbook. In addition, BLM will need to develop and roll-out a communication strategy and plan. Therefore, the recommendations will not be fully implemented until December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, BLM is reviewing comments from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor on the revised grazing handbook. In addition, BLM will need to develop and roll-out a communication strategy and plan. Therefore, the recommendations will not be fully implemented until December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, BLM is reviewing comments from the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor on the revised grazing handbook. In addition, BLM will need to develop and roll-out a communication strategy and plan. Therefore, the recommendations will not be fully implemented until December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Washington Office staff are finalizing directive revisions affecting the change in the excess and unauthorized use fee structure and preparing them for tribal consultation. It is anticipated that the 120-day tribal consultation period will begin concurrent with the publication in the Federal Register of a 60-day notice and comment period for the revised directives. It is expected that the revisions would be ready to be implemented prior to the beginning of the 2021 grazing fee year that begins March 1, 2021.
GAO-16-594, Jul 1, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, no action has been taken on this Matter for Congressional Consideration.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, HHS officials reiterated that they believe the agency has addressed our recommendation because CMS works with HHS's Office of Inspector General (OIG) as appropriate to collect source documentation from drug manufacturers and takes action as warranted. HHS stated that CMS has continued to provide information regarding problematic ASP submissions to OIG for evaluation of misreporting and continues to use AMP and other benchmarks as comparisons for pricing determinations. They further stated that they do not believe that additional collection of detailed sales information about ASP, such as invoices, is authorized under Part B drug payment provisions in section 1847A or under section 1927(b). As of June 2020, CMS did not provide any additional updates. While we recognize that CMS conducts routine checks to assess the completeness of ASP data submitted by drug manufacturers, we do not believe these activities are enough to close the recommendation. Specifically, CMS only collects source documentation from manufacturers under very limited circumstances (e.g., when there are obvious inconsistencies in the data submitted by manufacturers). CMS does not periodically verify the accuracy of ASP data for a sample of manufacturers by tracing the data to and from drug manufacturers' source documents, such as sales invoices. Because CMS does not routinely verify the accuracy of the underlying data used to determine Medicare payment rates, the resulting payment rates may be inaccurate if drug manufacturers do not report accurate data. With regards to CMS's authority to collect additional information, such as invoices, we believe the agency could work through OIG to collect such information.
GAO-16-645, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with this recommendation. In February 2020, Education told us that it had awarded three grants that, while not focused on FGM/C, may be used for student safety and health at the U.S. state and local levels. After it evaluates grantees' need for information and resources related to FGM/C, Education will determine its next steps. In addition, Education reported that it continues to participate on the federal interagency workgroup devoted to FGM/C and has dedicated program staff to respond to issues related to FGM/C. Education expects to finalize its written plan by August 2020.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education (Education) concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2020 update that it is in the process of determining next steps for certain FGM/C awareness activities that may be included in the written plan it will develop. Education expects that it will finalize its written plan by August 2020, at which point it should also communicate that plan with other federal agencies and stakeholder groups to address our recommendation.
GAO-16-628, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. Specifically, we reported that the Bureau should ensure that its budget for contingencies for the 2020 Census reflect an accurate accounting of risk and uncertainty. In doing this, the Bureau should improve controls over risk and uncertainty in the cost estimate process, and institutionalize these controls by providing clear methods for their use. In July 2018, we completed a review of documentation to support the updated October 2017 cost estimate and found that the Bureau performed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on the estimate and appropriately added funding into the cost estimate to reflect inherent uncertainty and to account for specific risks. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to link specific risks to funds set aside in the $1.2 billion general risk contingency fund. Therefore, as of January 2020, this recommendation remains valid and should be addressed: that the Bureau properly account for risk in the 2020 Census cost estimate.
GAO-16-286, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3489
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has made progress on this recommendation by (1) aligning guidance on the Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities (IGCA) Inventory to redefined Management Headquarters Activities, (2) requiring service components to revalidate DOD function codes assigned to billets when providing data to support the IGCA inventory, and, (3) providing documentation to show it had aligned total obligation authority and manpower information in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documentation to demonstrate that guidance had been implemented. In addition, DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. When the department documents alignment of major headquarters activities with civilian and military manpower information and improves functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD had made progress on this recommendation by documenting it had aligned manpower and total obligation authority in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. As of August 2020, the department had not, however, finalized the definition of major headquarters activities in its guidance. When the department formalizes the definition in guidance and improves its functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and estimate related resources.
GAO-16-522R, Jun 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3406
Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open
Comments: During our fiscal year 2019 audit, we continued to find control deficiencies over CFPB's accounting for its property, equipment, and software. CFPB was still in the process of working with its Office of Procurement and program offices to require more detailed invoices with costs broken out by project. We will continue to evaluate CFPB's actions to address this recommendation during our fiscal year 2020 financial statement audit.
GAO-16-553, Jun 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In a meeting in December 2019, the Indian Energy and Minerals Steering Committee (IEMSC) members agreed that BIA should complete the review and approval of Indian communitization agreements (CA) within 120 days. This 120 days includes the requirement that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) complete its review in 30 days and that this review occurs concurrently. IEMSC is a committee within Interior that includes senior managers from BIA, BLM, and other agencies with a focus on Indian trust energy and mineral policies and issues. To fully implement this recommendation, BIA should formally establish required time frames for the review and approval of CA, such as including the time frames in its Onshore Energy and Mineral Lease Management Interagency Standard Operating Procedures. We will continue to monitor BIA's response to this recommendation.
GAO-16-575, Jun 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, FHWA has not determined what actions, if any, it plans to take to address this recommendation. During 2019, FHWA officials stated that the agency was planning, in consultation with state departments of transportation, to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results from crash-test labs. The initial plan was to work with an outside organization that would assume responsibility for third party verification by mid to late 2020. This outside organization was to be responsible for developing guidelines with respect to lab independence and dealing with cases where a testing lab and a hardware developer are owned by the same parent company. According to FHWA officials, while the agency engaged with two outside organizations, it has not been able to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results through an outside organization and is considering additional options. As a result, FHWA is re-evaluating actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, FHWA has not determined what actions, if any, it plans to take to address this recommendation. During 2019, FHWA officials stated that the agency was planning, in consultation with state departments of transportation, to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results from crash-test labs. The initial plan was to work with an outside organization that would assume responsibility for third party verification by mid to late 2020. According to FHWA officials, while the agency engaged with two outside organizations, it has not been able to establish a mechanism for third party verification of results through an outside organization and is considering additional options. As a result, FHWA is re-evaluating actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, FHWA officials stated that the agency expects the pilot program report to be issued in December 2020, but it will not report results because the sample sizes were too small. In addition, officials told us that no further research into in-service performance evaluations are planned.
GAO-16-310, May 26, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6722
Agency: Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2018, DEA told us that it assessed the feasibility of directly collaborating with SSA to check registrants' SSNs against any SSA systems, including the Enumeration Verification System (EVS), and is unable to implement a data verification process to validate SSNs against EVS without legislative authority. Specifically, DEA said that access to SSA's systems would require passage of new legislation to authorize DEA to fully participate in a data exchange agreement with SSA, which DEA said was also confirmed by Senate staff. In June 2020, DEA provided documentation of SSA's response to DEA's request to access EVS which stated that SSA was unable to enter into a data exchange under the conditions DEA initially proposed. However, it also stated that SSA would explore granting DEA access if DEA requested number-holder's consent. Therefore, we continue to believe there is a possible path forward in using SSA's service. Additionally, DEA told us that it would use information from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) to validate SSNs. However, as of August 2020, DEA has not provided any documentation to support how or if this has been implemented. Further, as noted in our report, FSMB is limited to information for medical doctors, osteopathic doctors and some physician assistants, which make up only a portion of DEA's registrants. As we noted in our report, validating SSNs will help establish registrants' identities which will better ensure DEA has the information necessary to implement its existing controls and to identify other registrations held by each individual, including past adverse actions taken against previous registrations. As such, we continue to believe that DEA should take steps to validate the information it receives. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in this area.
Agency: Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2018, DEA provided a copy of its purchase order award to the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB); however, as of August 2020, DEA has not provided documentation to demonstrate how use of FSMB will be implemented. Also, in April 2018, DEA said it was exploring how to establish a cost-effective system to obtain National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) information and will reevaluate the need to obtain NPDB information after DEA has had the opportunity to process the FSMB information. In June 2020, DEA stated it will not be taking additional action on obtaining NPDB. We will continue to monitor DEA's progress in implementing this recommendation.
GAO-16-514, May 26, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2016, we reported on the Department of Homeland Security's management and oversight of short-term holding facilities. We found, for example, that only 4 of 17 Border Patrol holding facilities posted information on how individuals can contact the DHS OIG to file general complaints, and the remaining facilities did not have information posted on any complaint mechanisms, such as the Joint Intake Center or CBP INFO Center. In December 2016, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) sent a broadcast to ICE field offices stating that posters should be visible at all of ICE ERO temporary holding facilities. This broadcast directed ICE ERO Field Office staff to immediately post copies of the Detention Reporting and Information Line poster, both in English and in Spanish, in temporary confinement areas or other areas so that it is visible to individuals in custody at ICE ERO temporary holding facilities. With regard to CBP, in October 2019, officials informed us there is no current CBP guidance requiring signage in CBP holding facilities to communicate complaint mechanisms other than the Prison Rape Elimination Act poster, which relates to reporting mechanisms for any potential incidents of sexual abuse and assault. In September 2020, CBP told us it planned to implement the necessary corrective actions to close this recommendation by March 31, 2021. In order to be able to close the recommendation as implemented, we will need to see updated guidance to the field about the posters that should be displayed in CBP facilities.
GAO-16-379, May 24, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated that both of these documents are currently under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 and is awaiting a reply. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP)/Global Force Management (GFM) Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. This change would further require an update of the SOPP/GFM Instruction. The COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. New Estimated Completion Date (ECD): June 30, 2021.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: On December 14, 2016, the Coast Guard noted that it submitted two FY 2019 Resource Proposals to staff and equip the Manpower Requirements Determination Division to conduct the analysis as described in the recommendation. In April, 2016, the Coast Guard liaison stated that, resources permitting, the Coast Guard is to address the following steps: (1) Validate the "unit-type" list so that it encompasses the vast majority of active duty and civilian billets in a logical framework that can be readily analyzed, review/update the list as changes (e.g., asset mix, organizations) occur. (2) Develop the requirements for the envisioned Manpower Analysis & Simulation Tool (MAST). (3) Prioritize unit list according to strategic alignment and risk assessment (4) Conduct the manpower requirements analyses (MRA) in accordance with established priorities. As of August 2020, the Coast Guard reported it had not implemented the actions. Specifically, the Coast Guard reported that in response to GAO's February 2020 modernization report (GAO-20-223, rec#2), it was developing new guidance for executing the manpower requirement determination process. Officials told us that the new guidance would include a systematic process for prioritizing manpower analysis. In this way, the actions for implementing the GAO-20-223 recommendation may also serve to meet the intent of the recommendation for GAO-16-379. Officials told us the Coast Guard estimated implementing the actions by December 31, 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated these documents are under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 asking for an update. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the SOPP/GFM Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. The liaison stated that the COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. The new estimated completion date for this recommendation is June 30, 2021.
GAO-16-457R, May 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9377
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During fiscal year 2019, we identified instances where staff did not comply with IRS's policies and procedures related to monitoring and reviewing the monitoring of manual refunds. IRS officials stated that the Wage and Investment (W&I) organization determined that a fully automated process to perform monitoring of manual refunds is the optimal solution to address, at an enterprise level, deficiencies associated with reliance on employees to monitor refunds in process and take appropriate action when potential duplicate or erroneous refund conditions are encountered. In addition, IRS officials indicated that the W&I organization will develop business requirements and request programming through the Unified Work Request process; however, limited resources and competing priorities prevent the identification of an implementation date. As a result, IRS will place this recommendation on hold until an implementation date is known.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During fiscal year 2019, the Wage and Investment (W&I) organization determined that periodic backlogs of Input Correction Operation (ICO) inventory were caused by a combination of factors, such as systemic issues, fluctuations in projected filings, and hiring challenges. IRS officials stated that the W&I organization has also identified and implemented several strategies to address ICO backlogs and mitigate the impact on the quality review program, including hiring more staff in ICO functions, using seasonal employees, cross-training, overtime, transferring of work, and updating the Internal Revenue Manual. Since IRS provided us with this information near the end of our fiscal year 2019 audit in September 2019, we will evaluate IRS's actions to address this recommendation during our fiscal year 2020 audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS established the Asset Management Program Monitoring and Review procedure, effective October 1, 2016, for performing quarterly sample reviews of Information Technology (IT) assets in the Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service Asset Management (KISAM) system. In September 2017, IRS also revised the Internal Revenue Manual to require Facilities Management and Security Services territory managers or section chiefs to review KISAM key data elements for non-IT assets to verify that they are correct and updated. However, during our fiscal year 2018 floor-to-book inventory testing, we identified exceptions where (1) a key detailed information element (e.g., building code) for property and equipment (P&E) assets was not properly recorded in KISAM and (2) P&E assets found on the floor did not have asset records in KISAM. We will conduct inventory testing and follow-up to determine the status of this issue during our audit of IRS's fiscal year 2020 financial statements.
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-16-523, May 16, 2016
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation and said it planned to establish core hours in the requirements for servicers to help borrowers access live customer service representatives. In May 2018, an Education official told us that the department is redesigning its loan servicing system, and one of the goals of this effort is to ensure a consistent experience for all borrowers. The official said all borrowers will have access to the same call center number and other customer service functions, but the specifics have not yet been decided. As Education completes its loan servicing redesign, it should ensure that borrowers have improved access to customer service representatives to aid them in managing their loans. In February 2020, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress. The agency estimates a completion date of October 30, 2021, when the new system is expected to be fully operational.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2018, the Department of Education reported that as part of its redesigned loan servicing system, it plans to develop a single platform that maintains a record of all customer service interactions, including any complaints that borrowers submit. While the details have yet to be determined, the goal is to create a unified process consistent with the intent of this recommendation, according to Education. Education must ensure that it collects comprehensive and comparable information on borrower complaints in order to ensure the program meets borrower needs. In February 2020, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress. The agency estimates completion in October 2021, when the new system is expected to be fully operational.
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation and stated that it would evaluate existing and alternative performance metrics and compensation strategies as part of its process for procuring a new loan servicing solution. In February 2020, an Education official told us that Education's new loan servicing system would eventually address this recommendation. However, the official said the metrics that will be used to evaluate loan servicers have not yet been determined. Unless Education better aligns its servicer performance metrics, borrowers will continue to be at risk of experiencing errors and poor customer service. In October 2019, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress, pending completion in October 2021, when the new system is expected to be fully operational.
GAO-16-432, May 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, the agency described the actions of committees developed by each of the centers to oversee their regulatory science activities. In July 2019, the agency indicated that it was revisiting its strategic regulatory science priorities as part of its cyclical strategic planning process, and the centers and various offices have taken steps to address the recommendation. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that a committee had undertaken a review its 2011 regulatory science strategic plan that will result in the issuance of an accountability framework--an internal document outlining the type of information that FDA centers and offices will provide to the agency's Chief Scientist to demonstrate progress made in addressing relevant focus areas of regulatory science. FDA reported that its goal was to complete this work by the end of December 2020. However, FDA still needs to document steps taken by these centers to develop measurable goals, and the agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018 and July 2019, the agency described actions taken by each center to better track its regulatory science funding. However, FDA still needed to complete these activities and document that funds are systematically tracked across each of the priority areas. In an August 2020 written response, the agency reported that there continue to be efforts to improve tracking of funds for regulatory science projects in priority areas. Specifically, it described the development of an accountability framework-an internal document outlining the type of information that FDA centers and offices will provide to the agency's Chief Scientist to demonstrate progress made in addressing relevant focus areas of regulatory science. According to FDA, as part of the internal accountability framework, it will track regulatory science projects. FDA reported that its goal was to complete this work by the end of December 2020. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-16-414, May 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512- 5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. Although in its comments to that report DOD agreed that it should establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations, DOD did not agree with identifying the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the lead for this recommendation. In our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet developed a strategic policy, had not yet determined which DOD organization would lead that effort, and that there was no consensus among officials we spoke with regarding which organization should lead that effort. In is comments to this update, DOD generally concurred with these findings and stated that it had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations and that the Air Force had recommended OSD form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but until the department establishes a strategic policy for the retrograde and reset of equipment that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management as we recommended in May 2016, it will not be positioned to effectively manage the retrograde and reset of equipment. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. In December 2017, DOD updated the relevant chapter of the its Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include definitions of "reset" and "retrograde." However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that despite this action, the terms retrograde and reset were not being used or defined consistently by the department and the military services. Specifically, while some services were using the term reset as defined in the regulation, others were not. In commenting on our 2018 update, DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations, which allows for a common budget framework, while retaining service flexibility to fulfill their Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip. DOD further stated that the Air Force recommended the Office of the Secretary of Defense form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We believe that these actions would be a step in the right direction, but to fully meet the intent of our May 2016 recommendation, DOD needs to take action to ensure that these terms are uniformly defined and consistently used throughout the services. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its response to our recommendation in GAO-16-414, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet identified a lead for this effort, and that the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment. Navy and Air Force officials further cited the need for a DOD-wide policy before they can establish service-specific plans for resetting equipment for contingency operations while Army officials told us that the Army relies on multiple guidance documents for the reset of equipment and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation plan. In its response to GAO-18-621R, DOD notes that detailed guidelines and processes for the rotation of personnel in contingency and non-contingency operations are in place, and that if a strategic policy is developed for the retrograde and reset of equipment, consideration should be given to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) as the lead. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid and that DOD also needs to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans, as we also recommended in 2016. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS as of August 2016, OMHA and DAB were considering the cost and technical feasibility of collecting this information within their appeals data systems. As of August 2018, OMHA has begun to take action on this recommendation. Specifically, in the July 2017 interim release of the Electronic Case Adjudication and Processing Environment (ECAPE) system, OMHA added a "Reason for Disposition" data field. However, the "Reason for Disposition" data field is currently limited in the number of reasons that can be selected, and ECAPE has not yet been rolled out to all OMHA offices. In May 2019, HHS reported that OMHA had modified the "Reason for Disposition" data field to capture more categories, and that DAB had modified its case management system to capture the reasons for appeal decisions at Level 3 and was working to develop system interoperability with ECAPE. In August 2019, OMHA officials noted that ECAPE had been implemented in 6 of OMHA's 10 field offices and was on track to implement ECAPE in all 10 field offices and its satellite office by the end of 2019. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information regarding DAB's efforts to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS as of August 2016, this information was not captured in any CMS system, including MAS. HHS reported that if MAS is modified to capture the amount of Medicare allowed charges at stake, OMHA will consider modifying its Electronic Case Adjudication and Processing Environment (ECAPE) to include this information as well, and DAB can capture it in a new case management system currently being developed by the agency. As of August 2019, HHS officials stated that developing a methodology to estimate the amount that CMS would have paid providers is complex and would not be appropriate for use in determining whether the appeal meets the amount in controversy requirements for a Level 3 appeal. The basis for our recommendation was also so that HHS could better monitor important appeal trends. Additionally, without this information, HHS does not know the actual amount of Medicare reimbursement at issue in the appeals process. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information regarding HHS's efforts to implement it.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: According to HHS as of August 2016, HHS reported taking several initial steps to standardize data across Medicare appeals systems. As of August 2018, HHS was continuing to take steps to implement GAO's recommendation to standardize data collection on appeals across its multiple data systems. Specifically, HHS stated that, in November 2016, CMS and OMHA modified the MAS system to standardize appeal categories between Levels 1 through 3, which will help to facilitate more accurate trending analyses across appeal levels. Further, as of April 2017, all Part A Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC), who are responsible for Part A Level 1 appeals, were successfully processing appeals in MAS, according to HHS. In August 2019, OMHA officials noted that the ECAPE system, which will interact with MAS for reporting purposes, had been implemented in 6 of OMHA's 10 field offices and would be implemented in all 10 field offices and its satellite office by the end of 2019. However, Part B and DME MACs, which are responsible for Part B and DME Level 1 appeals, have not been fully transitioned to MAS. Therefore, appeals categories are still inconsistent for these claims. According to HHS, CMS has not received funding to transition the remaining Level 1 appeals contractors to MAS. Additionally, HHS reported that DAB continues to explore ways to develop interoperability between MODACTS and OMHA's ECAPE system. Therefore, we will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-16-394, Apr 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In April 2016, we recommended that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should seek legislative authority to allow the Recovery Auditors (RAs) to conduct prepayment claim reviews. The Department of Health and Human Services did not concur with this recommendation, and the President's fiscal year 2021 budget did not include a proposal for such authority. We continue to believe CMS should seek legislative authority to allow RAs to conduct these reviews. Until CMS seeks and implements this authority, it will be missing an opportunity to help identify improper payments before they are made.
GAO-16-331, Apr 13, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7215
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, SSA reported taking a number of steps to address this recommendation. According to SSA, it updated its guidance in 2017 to help ensure that staff consistently process various requests from overpaid individuals. SSA also reported that it is taking additional steps to update instructions on how staff should consider whether expenses reported by individuals are reasonable when approving withholding plans. The agency expects these instructions to be complete by the end of fiscal year 2021. We will close this recommendation once SSA releases additional guidance on assessing the reasonableness of expenses.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: SSA agreed with this recommendation and in 2017 estimated that this change would result in an additional $213 million in collections over a 5-year period. The fiscal year 2021 President's budget submission contained a legislative proposal to make this change, and budgets since 2017 have contained similar proposals. As of June 2020, SSA reported that it plans to continue to submit similar legislative proposals. SSA also included the proposal in its regulatory agenda, noting that the change can also be implemented via regulatory change. We will close this recommendation once SSA achieves resolution from Congress on its legislative proposal or from its own regulatory efforts.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: Although SSA initially disagreed with this recommendation, the agency reassessed its response in June 2019 and decided to take additional actions. As of June 2020, SSA is developing a system to track debts (the Debt Management Product) which will have the ability to store, track, and apply interest and penalties to overpayment debts. SSA also reports that it is seeking a regulatory change to clarify procedures to charge interest on debts. While SSA is pursuing these measures to position itself to charge interest on debts, the agency has not yet decided whether it will ultimately do so. We will close this recommendation once SSA makes a decision on how to proceed with charging interest on overpayment debts.
GAO-16-137, Apr 11, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) indicated that it had further reviewed our recommendation and determined that updating the agency's study on the effect of VA-provided Medicare-covered services on per capita county Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending rates using the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) utilization and diagnosis data was not feasible. Challenges cited by HHS included (1) pricing each VA encounter using Medicare payment rules; (2) determining which Medicare provider would have treated each beneficiary; and (3) the resources required to have an ongoing data feed with VA and to protect VA utilization and diagnosis data. While we acknowledge that there may be challenges associated with incorporating VA utilization and diagnosis data into HHS's analysis, we believe that HHS needs to do additional work before it can determine whether such an approach is feasible. For example, while HHS noted resource concerns related to sharing and storing sensitive VA data, the agency already receives and stores some VA data. It remains unclear whether HHS has assessed what additional resources would be needed to store VA utilization and diagnosis data and whether such data would need to be shared via an ongoing data feed-another challenge mentioned by HHS. As of June 2020, HHS has not provided us with any additional information about actions it has taken to address this recommendation. We continue to believe that HHS should assess the feasibility of implementing a methodology for estimating the effect of VA-provided Medicare-covered services on per capita county Medicare FFS spending rates that incorporates VA data.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) indicated that there are a number of limitations that would impede the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) ability to conduct an analysis of veteran versus nonveteran payments to MA plans. HHS indicated that in order to conduct a thorough assessment, CMS would need utilization and diagnosis data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which would take several years to collect and analyze. In addition, HHS indicated that if CMS determined an adjustment was needed, the agency would have to overcome other data, operational, and financial challenges related to making the adjustment. As a result, HHS indicated that implementing such an adjustment would be infeasible. However, CMS currently adjusts the benchmark to account for VA spending on Medicare-covered services without VA utilization and diagnosis data. While we agree that VA utilization and diagnosis data may improve the accuracy of an adjustment to MA payments to ensure that payments to MA plans are equitable for veterans and nonveterans, it is unclear why CMS could not make an adjustment without VA utilization and diagnosis data. As of June 2020, HHS has not provided us with any additional information about actions it has taken to address this recommendation. In order for us to close this recommendation, CMS would need to assess whether an additional adjustment to MA payments is needed.
GAO-16-76, Apr 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS is working to improve the accuracy of its calculation of coding intensity, as GAO recommended in April 2016. In October 2017, CMS officials told GAO that the agency is reevaluating the design of the risk adjustment data validation audits to ensure their rigor in the context of all the payment error data acquired since the original design of the audits. As part of this work, CMS officials told GAO that the agency will examine whether coding intensity is the best criterion to use to select contracts for audit. As a result, in October 2018, CMS told GAO that rather than coding intensity, it plans to implement a new methodology using payment error as the key sampling driver beginning with audits for payment year 2014. Additionally, CMS was taking steps to modernize its audit system to improve reliability. For example, it initiated a project to explore how to directly receive electronic medical record documentation. As of January 2020, the agency is continuing to reevaluate the design of these audits. Unless CMS takes this and other actions to improve the risk adjustment data validation contract-level audit process, it will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS is working to modify the selection of MA contracts for audit, as GAO recommended in April 2016. In October 2017, CMS officials told GAO that the initial RADV audit design was based on a limited set of payment error data available at the time. As part of efforts to improve the audits, CMS officials told GAO that the agency will examine whether coding intensity is the best criterion to select contracts for audit. In October 2018, CMS told GAO that it plans to implement a new methodology using payment error as the key sampling driver-rather than coding intensity-beginning with audits for payment year 2014. As of January 2020, the agency is using the revised methodology on the 2014 and 2015 payment year audits. They expect to conclude this process in late fiscal year 2020 and 2021, respectively. Unless CMS completes actions to improve the RADV contract-level audit process, it will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification. HHS reaffirmed its commitment to identifying and correcting improper payments in the MA program. It has begun taking steps to improve the timeliness of the contract-level RADV audit process, such as aligning the time frames in CMS's contract-level RADV audits with those of the national RADV audits. Once completed, CMS needs to provide evidence that the actions taken by the agency have enhanced the timeliness of CMS's contract-level RADV process.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS is working to improve the timeliness of the agency's contract-level risk adjustment data validation appeals process, as GAO recommended in April 2016. In October 2017, CMS officials told GAO that the agency is actively considering options for expediting the appeals process. For example, CMS is considering the appropriate number of days for rendering reconsideration decisions while allowing for a complete and thorough adjudication. In December 2019, CMS officials told GAO they expect to issue a final rule in January 2021 that will establish uniform timelines to expedite the appeals process. Specifically, they plan to require that a findings determination be made within 60-90 days of an arbiter's receipt of each party's arguments at each stage of an appeal. Unless CMS takes such actions to improve the risk adjustment data validation contract-level audit process, it will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS has attempted to incorporate a recovery audit contractor in the Medicare Advantage program, as GAO recommended in April 2016. After failing to receive any proposals when CMS first issued a request for proposals (RFP) in 2014, CMS issued a request for information to industry in December 2015, which included a draft Statement of Work to solicit feedback, gauge interest, and conduct market research regarding CMS entering into a contract with a recovery audit contractor to identify underpayments and overpayments associated with diagnosis data submitted to CMS by Medicare Advantage Organizations. CMS reported that it subsequently issued another RFP in 2016 and did not receive any proposals for a second time. In December 2019, CMS officials told GAO that the functions of the Part C recovery Audit programs are being performed through other program integrity mechanisms. CMS subsequently reported in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification that CMS believes the proposed scope of the Part C RAC has been subsumed by RADV and CMS will demonstrate that the RADV program satisfies this recommendation. Until CMS completes efforts to improve the risk adjustment data validation contract-level audit process and demonstrates that it has satisfied the requirement to incorporate a recovery audit contractor in the MA program, CMS will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
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-16-336, Mar 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4456
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated in March 2016 that the Navy had corrected the data query issue that caused 11 requirements to be eliminated from the traceability matrix we reviewed. DOD also stated that the Navy had identified the weakness in the traceability process that led to 14 general requirements not being fully traced. However, as of June 2020, DOD had not provided us with documentation that supports that it identified the weakness in the requirements traceability process. It also had not demonstrated that the program office has updated its requirements management guidance to address the weakness it identified.
GAO-16-398, Mar 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During GAO's audit of IRS' FY 2019 financial statements, IRS indicated that it had not yet implemented this recommendation. When the agency indicates that it has implemented this recommendation, we will review its actions.
GAO-16-305, Mar 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that its Joint Committee on Biorisk Management Policy (JCBMP) would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include department-wide incident reporting requirements and time frames. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. Officials stated that updates to component agency policies would be completed shortly after issuance of the departmental policy. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing outdated departmental policies. In addition, officials stated that APHIS reviews and updates agency policies every 3-5 years, and that this schedule will be reflected in the updated departmental policy. In October 2019, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) updated its agency policy for its institutional biological safety committee, the entity responsible for ensuring biosafety in its laboratories. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that revisions to the departmental, APHIS, and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) policies should be completed by December 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee efforts to collect and analyze laboratory inspection results and incident reports and share these reports and critical analyses with USDA senior leadership on an annual basis. As of July 2020, USDA estimated that revisions to its departmental policy-which would reflect the JCBMP's role in analyzing inspection results and incident reports, identifying potential trends, and sharing lessons learned-should be completed by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include requirements for routine reporting of inspection results to senior USDA officials. In July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2016, USDA stated that the JCBMP would oversee the revisions of existing policies to include requirements for routine reporting of laboratory incidents to senior USDA officials. In July 2020, USDA estimated that these revisions should be completed by October 2020. Officials stated that updates to component agency policies would be completed shortly after issuance of the departmental policy. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In June 2018, DOD stated that it had completed evaluation of existing DOD and service level guidance related to inventory control. DOD also stated that it will continue to analyze the adequacy of existing policy and the need to expand that policy across the DOD Lab Enterprise as the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 is finalized for publication. As of August 2019, DoD said the draft DoDM 6055.18 was still in review and the agency estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated that it had updated the Air Force policy (AF Instruction 10-2611-0) as of January 19, 2017; this document updates the biological safety standards used in AF labs and implements the draft update to Department of Defense Manual 6055.18M: Safety Standards for Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. As of July 2019, DOD provided GAO with the updated Army policy AR 190-17; however DOD officials stated that as the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, this recommendation should remain open. DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2019, DOD reported that the Air Force is planning to close its BSAT program by the summer of 2019 and planning was underway to move the Air Force BSAT inventory to another DOD BSAT facility. Additionally, the Army was revising its AR 385-10, which contains biosafety criteria unique to the Army, and estimated the revision would be completed by December 2019. Finally, the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, and DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2019, DOD reported that the Air Force is planning to close its BSAT program by the summer of 2019 and planning was underway to move the Air Force BSAT inventory to another DOD BSAT facility. Additionally, the Army was revising its AR 385-10, which contains biosafety criteria unique to the Army, to include a new mishap classification for biosafety mishaps to effect better reporting and analysis of these mishaps, and estimated the revision would be completed by December 2019. Finally, the draft Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.18 was still undergoing review, and DOD estimated it would complete work to respond to this recommendation in February 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of June 2018, DOD stated that the draft directive DODD 5101.XXE, which is expected to be published in October 2018, formally designates the Executive Agent Responsible Official for Biosafety and Biosecurity and will establish roles and responsibilities including a role for reporting inspection results. Further, DOD stated that all inspection results of a joint inspection team are provided to the Executive Agent Responsible Official, and that the joint inspection team was established in September 2016. As of September 2019, DOD officials had provided updated documentation regarding this recommendation, and GAO was reviewing these updates.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that both CDC and FDA were working to incorporate incident reporting requirements and time frames into formal agency policies and practices but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In summer 2017, CDC and FDA reported that they were continuing to incorporate incident reporting, which includes all laboratory incidents, accidents, injuries, infections, and near-misses, into formal agency policies. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019 we had not received an update from HHS on the status of CDC's implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that CDC plans to revise its policies to include training and inspection requirements for inspections for all high-containment laboratories but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In June 2017, HHS reported that CDC was in the process of revising its formal policies to ensure they included requirements for training and inspections for all of the agency's high-containment laboratories but did not provide an anticipated completion date. In December 2017, HHS reported that CDC's policies were in the initial stages of the clearance process and anticipated they would be finalized in fall 2018. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status of these policies.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that CDC was working with FDA and NIH to establish a process for notifying HHS leadership of inspection results through the department's Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council. HHS did not provide us with an anticipated time frame for implementing this notification practice or when the agencies plan to begin notifying HHS of inspection results. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status NIH's actions.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that NIH's ongoing practice is to report the results of external inspections to senior agency officials and, in May 2016, developed a standard operating procedure that outlines this reporting process. In March 2017, NIH officials provided assurance that its Division of Occupational Safety and Health provides NIH's intramural governing body with information about NIH's safety performance at least annually; officials further assured that this information includes the overall results of annual inspections (or audits, as NIH calls them) of all NIH laboratories and discussion of the top 10 most report safety infractions for the year. GAO considers NIH to have implemented the recommended action. GAO will close the overall recommendation once FDA has taken equivalent, appropriate action. As of August 2019, FDA reported that the agency began piloting a standardized agency-wide laboratory safety inspection checklist to ensure that all laboratories are inspected rigorously and consistently. As part of the pilot, all laboratories were to be inspected during the first 3 quarters of the calendar year. The agency said it planned to aggregate the results of the inspections, and trends and significant findings would be reported to FDA senior leadership in the fourth quarter of 2019. GAO will continue to monitor FDA's actions to implement this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, HHS reported that its Biosafety and Biosecurity Council was working to establish incident reporting requirements for CDC, FDA, and NIH but did not provide an anticipated completion date. HHS noted that NIH formally adopted a standard operating procedure that lays out the agency's requirements for reporting incidents to senior officials. In August 2019, FDA reported that it continues to work with the Biosafety and Biosecurity Coordinating Council to establish a process for the routine reporting of these results but had not yet completed its actions. As of September 2019, HHS had not provided an update on the status of NIH or CDC actions.
GAO-16-328, Mar 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In March 2016, GAO recommended that VA monitor the full amount of time newly enrolled veterans wait to be seen by primary care providers, starting with the date veterans request they be contacted to schedule appointments. VA concurred with this recommendation, and in June 2017, reported to GAO that it had taken actions to address it. Specifically, VA indicated that it revised an internal report to help identify and document all newly enrolled veterans and monitor their appointment request status. The report is intended to enable VHA and its medical centers to oversee the enrollment and appointment process by tracking the following timeframes: (1) application to enrollment, (2) enrollment to initial contact, (3) initial contact to primary care appointment, and (4) total time from application to primary care appointment. However, VA also indicated in its response that it did not have data that captures application dates for all newly enrolled veterans. As such, the report could not be used to consistently monitor the full amount of time these veterans wait to be seen by primary care providers. In January 2018, VA reported developing and implementing technical enhancements to its electronic systems that will enable it to capture the application date for all newly enrolled veterans. In April 2018 and December 2018, VA reported making continued efforts to implement technical enhancements to its electronic system. In its February 2020 update, VA identified several steps that the agency was completing to fully implement the revised internal report and noted that following a successful piloting of the report, the agency would implement it system-wide. VA reported that it expects to fully address this recommendation by October 2020.
GAO-16-11, Mar 17, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7215
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: According to OSHA officials, the agency had a study underway to review OSHA's workplace violence enforcement cases in health care to better understand the obstacles OSHA compliance officers encountered during these investigations and identify factors which led to citations. The study was intended to help compliance officers develop citations in workplace violence cases. In addition, in December 2016, OSHA published a Request for Information on Preventing Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance (RFI) to help identify workplace violence prevention requirements that could be effective and economical if a regulation were to be developed. OSHA reported in June 2018 that it is evaluating the information it received in response to the RFI and is gathering information on best practices in certain industries. As of April 2020, OSHA completed its review of the submissions in response to the RFI, is developing regulatory options, and will obtain additional input from potentially affected small businesses. The agency anticipates completing this process by the end of 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, the agency should complete its process of obtaining input on the regulatory options the agency is developing, and finalize its determination on whether regulatory action is needed.
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-16-313, Mar 10, 2016
Phone: (617) 788-0534
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation. In June 2018, Indian Affairs provided us with documentation on its efforts to build schools' capacity to address safety and health problems with facilities. In particular, the agency updated its Service Level Agreement between BIA and BIE, which details their roles and responsibilities for inspecting and providing technical assistance to BIE schools, among other areas. However, Indian Affairs' documents provided little information on how it planned to support BIE school personnel in fixing safety hazards in their facilities. In our 2016 report, we found that school personnel often lack the necessary technical expertise, time, and resources to address safety hazards in school buildings. Further, the agency did not include information on whether it has staffed regional offices with specialists to assist schools with safety and facility issues. In February 2020, agency officials said that they had not taken further actions to implement the recommendation and indicated that no office or official was currently responsible for coordinating efforts to implement the recommendation.
GAO-16-278, Mar 10, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.
GAO-16-155, Feb 23, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9110
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS had taken some action to establish a mechanism to coordinate on a plan and timeline for developing a consolidated, online referral submission, as GAO recommended in its February 2016 report. IRS established a cross-functional team in February 2016 to comprehensively review IRS's referral programs. Among other things, the team has explored options to consolidate the initial screening operations and determine the scope and complexity for moving the referral process to an online format. According to IRS, an electronic submission process is expected to provide better access to the program and reduce the burden associated with making a written report or referral. In November 2016, the cross-functional team requested information technology resources for fiscal year 2019 to develop an online system which could potentially replace four separate referral forms, filter out incomplete referrals, and electronically route referrals for further IRS action. IRS assessed options for consolidating all forms for the various referral programs and determined that consolidating them to a single form was not feasible because of the technical nature and complexity of the various referral types. The cross-functional team had worked with IRS On Line Services to develop an online application prototype and was considering the cost-effectiveness of a commercial off-the-shelf product. According to IRS, the online application will make it easier for the public to report possible tax violations. Also, the online system will improve efficiency in coordination and provide reports that will be incorporated into the quarterly coordination meetings of the new cross-division referral coordination committee. As of January 2020, IRS was still considering funding for online referral submission development. IRS estimated that a commercial off-the-shelf product would cost about $2 million with an online referral capacity operational within one year. IRS said it will consider further consolidating the referral programs once the online application is in place. Without continued progress on efforts to consolidate referral intake, IRS faces continued inefficiencies in receiving and processing referrals as well as public confusion caused by trying to choose among multiple forms.
GAO-16-119, Feb 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
GAO-16-236, Feb 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD has drafted new combined DOD instruction and guidance that addresses the process of reporting suspected counterfeit parts to GIDEP. As of August 2020, the document is still in the process of being formally approved. DOD estimated that it could be approved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD has drafted new combined DOD instruction and guidance that addresses the process of reporting suspected counterfeit parts to GIDEP. As of August 2020, the document is still in the process of being formally approved. DOD estimated that it could be approved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD has drafted new combined DOD instruction and guidance that addresses the process of reporting suspected counterfeit parts to GIDEP. As of August 2020, the document is still in the process of being formally approved. DOD estimated that it could be approved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.
GAO-16-226, Feb 9, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In February 2018 DOD issued a policy on harassment prevention and response in the armed services that defined hazing as one form of harassment, and required each military department secretary to provide a plan to implement the policy. As of October 2020, DOD stated that it had assessed that the military services had fully implemented DOD's hazing policy by September 2020. This determination was based on an assessment of military service implementation plans for DOD's harassment prevention and response policy, which includes prevention of hazing. Through ongoing work on hazing in the military, we continue to monitor the extent to which DOD has regularly monitored the extent to which the military services have implemented its hazing policy.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. As of September 2017, DOD had added questions to its survey of servicemembers that would facilitate an evaluation of hazing prevalence but had not yet conducted the evaluation. In October 2020, DOD stated that it need to conduct additional analysis on its survey data and on a hazing/bullying metric developed for DOD by the RAND Corporation, and estimated it would implement this recommendation by October 2023.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In 2017 the Coast Guard surveyed servicemembers on hazing and stated that it planned to, but had not yet conducted an evaluation of prevalence. However, in July 2018, the Coast Guard stated that no further analysis was planned for the 2017 survey data. The Coast Guard stated that a second survey was planned for 2019, but did not identify any plans to evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard. As of October 2020, the Coast Guard has not provided a requested update on the status of the implementation of this recommendation or indicated any ongoing plans to implement it.
GAO-16-238, Feb 2, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2019, HHS officials reported that they are waiting for a policy decision from leadership concerning non-emergency medical transportation. GAO will continue to monitor and update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-16-165, Jan 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Forest Service said it has the statutory authority to issue a rule that establishes a fee structure, but it does not have the authority to collect and retain fees for hardrock mine plan processing activities. The Forest Service said it worked with the Department of Agriculture and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a request through the President's Budget for authority from Congress to retain any fees collected from mine operations. The President's Budget for fiscal year 2021, developed by OMB, included such a request to Congress. If Congress grants this authority, the Forest Service said it will issue a rule that establishes a fee structure for hardrock mine operations so it can begin retaining collected fees.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: According to a letter received from the agency in April 2016, BLM expressed concern about whether promulgating a rule to assess cost recovery fees for environmental assessment would result in faster permitting times and noted that such an undertaking may be challenging to complete given resource limitation as a result of other high priority rule making efforts currently underway by BLM. The agency proposed conducting an internal analysis to determine whether requiring cost recovery would result in reduced permitting times and expected that report to be completed by the end of 2017. We contacted the Department of the Interior in April 2020 and it had no new information to provide at that time. We will update the status of this recommendation as more information becomes available.
GAO-16-67, Jan 6, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, Amtrak had not allocated its depreciation costs to its lines of business, as we recommended. In 2019, Amtrak stated that federal law required Amtrak to allocate and report its capital spending by line of business. Amtrak further stated that depreciation expense is a good proxy for capital spending and that the changed reporting requirements eliminated the need to report depreciation by line of business. In addition, although Amtrak's external auditor did not find any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in Amtrak's fiscal year 2019 audited financial statement-the most recent available-those statements do not allocate Amtrak's depreciation costs to its various business lines. We will update this recommendation's status with any new information from Amtrak.
Agency: Northeast Corridor Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Commission and its members had yet to establish criteria for selecting and prioritizing capital projects in its 5-year capital plan. The Commission staff told GAO that it had developed potential criteria for selecting projects for both regional and NEC-wide priorities to be included the Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan, Fiscal Years 2020 - 2024, published in April 2019 and updated in December 2019. However, those potential criteria were not formally adopted by the Commission members. Specifically, the Commission's proposed criteria for selecting NEC-wide priorities included projects that would prevent the potential severing of the Northeast Corridor and advance state-of-good repair. Proposed criteria for regional priorities included projects that would increase train capacity and improve passenger access to rail services. While the proposed criteria were not used to select or prioritize projects in the Capital Investment Plan, Fiscal Years 2020 - 2024, the plan presented the proposed criteria as "benefits" for the projects in that plan. While this information may be helpful to stakeholders in understanding some of the rationale for the inclusion of projects in the plan, it does not demonstrate that the Commission and its members have established formal criteria for selecting and prioritizing projects, as GAO recommended. GAO will continue to monitor the Commission's progress in addressing this recommendation.
GAO-16-158, Jan 5, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that any policy that it may issue related to the monitoring of prescribing practices would be directed toward all of the military services. In May 2018 DOD stated that it planned to (1) conduct a comprehensive review of existing prescribing practices for the treatment of PTSD; (2) develop policy guidance for addressing prescribing practices for the management of PTSD that deviate from the clinical practice guideline; and (3) implement an automated dashboard that will flag medications that the PTSD guideline discourages from use. In its February 26, 2020 response, DOD stated that July 30, 2020 is the estimated completion date for these planned actions. To close this recommendation, DOD needs to implement its planned actions and provide documentation showing that the Department is monitoring medications discouraged from use under the PTSD guideline and addressing identified deviations.
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-16-105, Dec 17, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5431
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD has taken steps to clarify what types of contractor personnel should be accounted for in its guidance on personnel status reports, but, as of July 2019, revision of that guidance is ongoing. According to Joint Staff officials in May 2018, CJCSM 3150.13C provides policy and guidance on what types of contractor personnel to account for in personnel status reports, and the updated guidance will incorporate lessons learned from USAFRICOM's implementation of that policy. The updated CJCSM 3150.13C is projected to be completed by Summer 2018. Once issued, USAFRICOM officials stated they will incorporate their local policies and standards into the CJCSM 3150.13C, and expect that a coordinated directive on local policies, procedures and standards will mitigate many of the previous interpretation issues. However, additional training and amplifying local procedures issued by the USAFRICOM J-1 may be necessary to fully implement its provisions and ensure consistent interpretation. Additionally, in February 2016, a class deviation became effective for the USAFRICOM area of responsibility (AOR). This deviation superseded Class Deviations 2014-O0005, and 2015-O0003. The deviation stated that contracting officers shall incorporate clause 252.225-7980, Contractor Personnel Performing in the United States Africa Command Area of Responsibility, in lieu of the clause at DFARS 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items that will require contractor personnel to perform in the United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) area of responsibility. In addition, to the extent practicable, contracting officers shall modify current, active contracts with performance in the USAFRICOM AOR to include the clause 252.225-7980. The USAFRICOM Commander has identified a need to utilize the Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker for all contracts performed in the AOR during all operational phases (including Phase 0), not limited to declared contingency operations. However, until CJCSM 3150.13C clarifying the types of contractor personnel and incorporating lessons learned from AFRICOM's implementation is finalized, this recommendation will remain open. As of July 2020, this CJSM had not been updated. Moreover, in July 2020, DOD stated that reissuance of DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, is required in order to implement this recommendation. When DOD takes further action, we will update this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2019, DOD has taken steps to develop foreign vendor vetting guidance, but is still working to determine key components of that guidance. Office of the Deputy of the Secretary of Defense issued a directive type memorandum in April 2018 that establishes policy and assigns responsibility for developing vendor vetting guidance to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Additionally, DOD established a foreign vendor vetting working group in January 2017 to, among other things, develop guidance that will define foreign vendor vetting as a distinct function and provide combatant commanders with guidance on addressing the risks associated with relying on commercial vendors. As of November 2019, OSD officials stated the working group is making progress to develop a formal charter, identify tools and strategies to enhance vendor vetting across the combatant commands, and establish a department-wide vendor vetting policy. Until DOD develops vendor vetting guidance, this recommendation will remain open. As of July 2020, DOD had extended its directive type memorandum, but had not developed vendor vetting guidance. When we confirm what additional actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-16-167, Dec 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, FCC officials said they are exploring options to address this recommendation and hope to have it implemented in fiscal year 2020.
GAO-16-151, Dec 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2017, Treasury officials told us that they planned to include correspondence data as part of Treasury's fiscal year 2018 annual performance plan and fiscal year 2016 annual performance report. While the fiscal year 2016 performance report included data on correspondence overage rates, as of August 2019, Treasury has not included correspondence overage as part of its performance goals. We continue to believe this recommendation is valid.
GAO-16-192, Dec 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: FDA has made changes intended to improve its process for overseeing tracked safety issues, but as of August 2020, FDA was still working on changes to its process for postmarket study data. For tracked safety issues, FDA held a one-day workshop to solicit input from staff on changes to its tracked safety issue process and collect user requirements for a new IT system to support tracking safety issues. In April 2020, FDA finalized new policies and procedures and implemented a new IT system for tracking safety issues. The new IT system allows anyone within FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to enter new safety signals and has integrated product and adverse event dictionaries. FDA stated that integrating standardized data will support consistent regulatory decisions and improve the quality of analysis. For postmarket studies, FDA has indicated that it intends to formally assess the IT needs of users as part of the planned transfer of postmarket data to its new informatics platform. As of August 2020, FDA anticipated creating a project team to address specific concerns related to postmarket study data by the end of calendar year 2020 or the beginning of calendar year 2021. GAO is keeping this recommendation open until FDA has completed its planned improvements to its process for tracking postmarket study data.
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In October 2016, DHS indicated that USCIS had established a working group and collected fraud trend information from all eight asylum offices that will be used to inform the development of a risk assessment framework. According to USCIS officials, the Asylum Division, in cooperation with other relevant internal stakeholders such as USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS), completed a draft asylum fraud risk assessment in September 2017. In January 2019, Asylum Division officials told us that they had identified limitations in the data used in the draft assessment. Thus, USCIS was working to complete a revised qualitative risk assessment report for our review. Officials also told us that the report was undergoing additional revisions due to changes in 2019 to the affirmative asylum program, and to reflect updates to the resources dedicated to FDNS's functions. As of October 2020, USCIS anticipates finalizing the report by the end of December 2020. Regularly assessing fraud risks across the affirmative asylum process would provide USCIS more complete information on risks that may affect the integrity of the process and therefore help USCIS target its fraud prevention efforts to those areas that are of highest risk.
GAO-16-79, Nov 19, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6244
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of the Treasury, as the sector-specific agency for the financial services sector, continues to develop initiatives intended to enhance the sector's cybersecurity. In 2016, Treasury developed and promulgated a set of seven fundamental elements or critical building blocks for sector stakeholders' cybersecurity, disseminated a template for financial sector cyber exercises, and promoted the NIST Cybersecurity Framework throughout the sector. However, they have not provided evidence of metrics implemented, and the 2015 sector-specific plan does not include specific metrics to track and report on their effectiveness. We will continue to monitor Treasury's efforts to create specific metrics and related reports on the sector's cybersecurity progress.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Agriculture (USDA), as the co-sector specific agency for the food and agriculture sector, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continues to implement cybersecurity-related activities for the sector. In particular, USDA, through the sector coordination council, routinely shares best practices and informational bulletins from the Department of Homeland Security on cybersecurity with sector stakeholders via the Homeland Security Information Network. In addition, at semi-annual council meetings, USDA has hosted roundtable discussions of cybersecurity challenges and best practices. No evidence of performance metrics to track and report on the SSAs' activities or the sector's cybersecurity progress has been provided. As USDA and HHS continue to carry out their sector-specific agency role, we will continue to monitor their efforts and associated performance metrics to be developed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these activities
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as the co-sector specific agency for the food and agriculture sector, with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to implement cybersecurity-related activities for the sector. In particular, through the sector coordination council, they routinely share best practices and informational bulletins from the Department of Homeland Security on cybersecurity with sector stakeholders via the Homeland Security Information Network. In addition, at semi-annual council meetings, they have hosted roundtable discussions of cybersecurity challenges and best practices. No evidence of performance metrics to track and report on the SSAs' activities or the sector's cybersecurity progress has been provided. As HHS and USDA continue to carry out their sector-specific agency role, we will continue to monitor their efforts and associated performance metrics to be developed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these activities
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to develop and implement activities in support of the water and wastewater sector's cybersecurity such as a cyber-attack risk assessment tool and cybersecurity training for sector partners. The 2015 water and wastewater sector-specific plan calls for assessing performance and reporting on sector cybersecurity progress; however, the plan does not state specific measures. In 2017, agency officials stated that the development of performance metrics in collaboration with sector partners was underway; however, EPA has not provided evidence of the metrics or any tracking effort. As EPA continues to carry out its sector-specific agency role, we will continue to monitor its efforts and associated performance metrics to be developed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these activities.
GAO-16-196T, Nov 18, 2015
Phone: (617) 788-0534
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Education agreed with this recommendation and reviewed its process for providing guidance to servicers. It has issued a few clarifications to servicers to help with consistency and reported that it intends to incorporate this recommendation into its acquisition plan for a new loan servicing system. To fully implement this recommendation, the agency needs to demonstrate that the new Direct Loan servicing system will provide clear and consistent instructions and guidance to servicers to ensure program integrity and improve service to borrowers. As of February 2020, Education officials said implementation of this recommendation was still in progress, pending completion in October 2021. At that time, the agency expects the re-design of its student loan financial services environment, which will include additional guidance to servicers, to be fully operational.
GAO-16-57, Nov 17, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM generally concurred with the recommendations, but raised issues primarily about the roles and responsibilities that GAO addresses in the report. As of November 2019, OPM has not taken any action on this recommendation.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: OPM generally concurred with the recommendations, but raised issues primarily about the roles and responsibilities that GAO addresses in the report. As of November 2019, OPM has not taken any action on this recommendation.
GAO-16-34, Oct 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: SSA continues to disagree with this recommendation as of December 2019. As we reported, when SSA accepts a beneficiary's return to work allegation (work report), staff have 30 days to determine whether additional action is needed, such as a continuing disability review (CDR) to assess continued eligibility and determine whether benefits should be adjusted. However, not all work reports result in a CDR, and GAO reported that SSA lacks an oversight process to help determine whether work reports are not resulting in CDRs when they should. SSA continues to maintain that its staff carefully review work reports and make independent determinations on the need for a CDR. Absent an oversight process to ensure that work reports are properly screened, SSA may be missing opportunities to prevent overpayments for unreported work. SSA further reported that it may decide to complete a CDR through alternative approaches, such as its Continuing Disability Review Enforcement Operation process using Internal Revenue Service data, its Quarterly Earnings Project using Office of Child Support Enforcement data, or its analysis of electronically reported wages. However, SSA did not indicate whether these alternative avenues for conducting CDRs could identify errors made by its staff handling work reports and result in feedback. Implementing this recommendation will help ensure that SSA staff appropriately take action on work reports.
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, SSA reported taking several steps to clarify work reporting requirements. For instance, SSA reported it has developed outreach materials to share information with beneficiaries and advocacy groups. However, SSA has not provided sufficient documentation for GAO to determine if it has clarified issues identified in GAO's 2015 report, such as how and when to report work, and that beneficiaries may have to repay overpayments that occur even when they report work. Finally, SSA has not indicated whether it has assessed options for increasing the frequency of reporting reminders to DI beneficiaries. Until SSA can demonstrate that it has improved the clarity of its work reporting requirements and frequency of its work reporting reminders, DI beneficiaries may continue to incur overpayments, or be required to repay overpayments that occurred even though they reported work.
GAO-16-13, Oct 22, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: National Institutes of Health
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2020, NIH reported that summary data as described in our Recommendation 4--that is, data and analysis on awardees' plans to conduct valid analysis by sex/gender--will be included in the 2019-2020 version of this publication, which the agency expects will be published in October 2021. We will continue to monitor NIH's actions on this matter.
GAO-16-42, Oct 21, 2015
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA officials reported in August 2020 that the agency was in the latter stages of developing a pilot program to verify beneficiaries' attendance using text messaging. This pilot, scheduled for release in November 2020, will initially be limited to beneficiaries receiving the Rogers STEM Scholarship to extend their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, but would eventually be expanded to all Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries if it is successful. VA expects to complete these efforts by December 2021.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA officials reported in August 2020 that the agency has taken action to move away from a reliance on mailed letters, including the eventual use of email notifications for debt letters and other GI Bill correspondence. The agency plans to implement these changes December by 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA officials reported in August 2020 that the agency is revising its tuition overpayment regulations to address the recommendation in GAO's 2015 report. VA officials said that these revisions are part of its broader regulatory proposal that has experienced delays due to 2017 legislative changes and other legal developments. They expect these proposed regulations to be published by December 2020.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA officials reported in August 2020 that the agency plans to amend its procedures to account for school refund policies when calculating veterans' overpayment debts, as we recommended. VA plans to incorporate this change in its information technology (IT) upgrades by December 2021. Earlier plans to implement this recommendation were put on hold so the department could prioritize other IT updates that it said are necessary to implement certain legislative changes to the GI Bill program.
GAO-16-39, Oct 20, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, GSA has informed us that it submitted a legislative proposal as part of the FY 2018 and FY 2019 budget cycle that was subsequently not included in the President's budget. We have asked GSA to provide us a copy of this proposal. We will evaluate whether this proposal is sufficient to close this recommendation.
GAO-16-53, Oct 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken some steps to improve the accuracy of Medicaid eligibility determinations, as GAO recommended in October 2015, but has not yet conducted a systematic review of federal eligibility determinations. In July 2017, HHS issued its final rule on the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program, and stated that it would include reviews of federal eligibility determinations in states that have delegated that authority. In December 2017, HHS provided information noting that the first cycle of the revised PERM includes two states where there were federal eligibility determinations. However, as HHS confirmed in December 2019, the random sample of eligibility determinations reviewed in the first cycle of the revised PERM did not include any federal eligibility determinations. As such, the PERM has not systematically reviewed federal determinations, and we maintain that further reviews are needed to help ensure that only individuals eligible for Medicaid are receiving benefits. We will continue to monitor HHS to determine if HHS is ascertaining the accuracy of federal eligibility determinations and taking corrective action where necessary.
GAO-15-671, Sep 28, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, FDA released for public comment its new Draft Guidance for Industry #256 - Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Substances. The draft guidance describes FDA's policy regarding the compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances including the conditions under which FDA does not intend to take enforcement action for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's requirements for approval, adequate directions for use, and current Good Manufacturing Practices. We will review the updated guidance when it is finalized and determine if it addresses this recommendation. In August 2020, FDA indicated that, in response to numerous requests from external stakeholders, the comment period on the draft guidance has been extended to October 2020. Once the comments have been reviewed, FDA anticipates finalizing the guidance by the end of calendar year 2021.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, FDA reported to GAO that when the Draft Guidance for Industry #256 was issued that calendar year, FDA intended to develop a risk-based compliance program to address compounding of animal drugs from bulk drug substances. As part of that compliance program, FDA reported that it intended to consistently document the basis for its decisions about what actions are taken, for example, warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints. In August 2020, FDA reported that a working group has been formed to develop a risk-based compliance strategy, which will include a process for documenting the basis for FDA's decisions about how or whether it followed up on warning letters, adverse event reports, and complaints about drug compounding for animals. FDA anticipates implementing this strategy simultaneously with the finalization of Guidance for Industry #256, which is anticipated to occur at the end of calendar year 2021. We will follow-up with FDA regarding these actions and determine if the actions address our recommendation.
GAO-15-807, Sep 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9627
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2016, ICE issued a memo regarding changes to its policies for the registration and suitability of confidential informants. The memo included updated forms to oversee those aspects of confidential informant oversight. In April 2017, ICE officials informed GAO that the agency planned for a working group to update the Informants Handbook and the Undercover Operations Handbook. As of October 2018, ICE reported that officials had made draft updates to the handbooks and that these updates were undergoing review. In June 2019, ICE reported that the updates were expected to be finalized in July 2019. The handbook updates had not been finalized as of February 2020, and, at that time, ICE officials reported that the handbooks were undergoing additional updates related to a separate effort unrelated to GAO's recommendation. As of June 2020, ICE officials did not have an estimated completion date for finalizing revisions to the handbooks. When the updated handbooks are available for GAO's review, we will assess the extent to which they address our recommendation.
GAO-15-682, Sep 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2623
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In fiscal year 2019, the 116th Congress' House and Senate introduced bills H.R. 3301 and S. 865, respectively, to extend the per barrel tax expiration dates. In addition, the Senate bill proposes a ceiling to cut off the tax if the fund's balance is above a certain amount and to also restart based on meeting certain thresholds. We will continue to monitor legislation and congressional actions.
GAO-15-744, Sep 10, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2017, IRS supplied documentation on how it had established a fairness policy statement, which is incorporated into the Internal Revenue Manual, communicated to staff in email, and provided via a powerpoint presentation to staff. IRS also established and documented collection program objectives as part of its FY2017 Collection Program Letter. In October 2017, IRS shared additional draft documentation with GAO that would align SB/SE objectives with objectives from its FY2017 Collection Program Letter as well as other information such as performance measures. Following our assessment and request for more information, in November 2017, IRS provided a document intended to define certain collection program objectives, but it did not clearly define fairness or collection program and ACS objectives. We provided IRS feedback on the document in November 2017, January 2018, and July 2018. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program with its automated case processes was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.
GAO-15-711, Sep 3, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that the department will submit its Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1, 2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that existing Army practice is consistent with the intent of departmental guidance for command climate survey utilization. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it concurs with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback assessments, where they are not already being performed, but that it believes that it should only do so for general and flag officers at the three star ranks and below. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. At that time, DOD also stated that it believes in a holistic approach to developing and assessing professionalism, noting, as an example, the Joint Staff's use of staff assistance visits and Senior Leader "roundtables" to complement the use of 360-degree assessments. In April 2018, DOD stated that each military department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had implemented a 360-degree assessment requirement for all general and flag officers. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries regarding documentation in support of these actions. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred, with comment, with this recommendation, noting that the office of the Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism is a temporary office established by Secretary Hagel for a two year term ending no later than March of 2016. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. In April 2018, DOD identified activities it had undertaken in the spirit and intent of the recommendation. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries for documentation in support of these actions and the related development of intermediate goals and performance metrics. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.
GAO-15-710, Aug 31, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2018 update that CMS requires MAOs to identify provider availability in certain circumstances, such as in granting exceptions to the agency's network adequacy criteria. CMS also stated that it would consider augmenting MA network adequacy criteria to address provider availability in future years. However, CMS's 2018 MA network adequacy guidance stated that the agency does not currently consider provider availability when reviewing an organization's network adequacy, and this guidance was not updated in 2019. As a result, as of September 2019, agency officials have not implemented this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2018 update that the agency has standardized existing protocols to ensure the validity of the Health Services Delivery data submitted by MAOs with regards to exceptions requests and partial county justifications. However, CMS's 2018 MA network adequacy guidance stated that MAOs remain responsible for conducting validation of Health Services Delivery data. Unless CMS verifies provider information submitted by MAOs, the agency cannot be confident that MAOs are meeting network adequacy criteria. As of September 2019, agency officials have not implemented this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In a September 2017 update, the agency stated that it had met the spirit of our recommendation by adding its best practice suggestions of what should be included in the written termination notice to the Medicare Managed Care Manual. However, as we noted in our report, those practices are not required, nor are the letters regularly reviewed. As of September 2019, agency officials have not yet implemented 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-15-647, Jul 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In March 2017, IRS provided documentation of actions taken on the recommendation, but the documents did not clearly define and communicate program objectives sufficient for internal control to support the collection program mission, including fairness in case selection. In November 2017, IRS provided additional documentation but it did not address case selection fairness or other objectives for the collection program and enterprise-wide case categorization and routing processes. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program with its case processes was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of November 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation. In November 2016, IRS provided documentation of risk management training for managers intended to assist them in understanding their responsibilities for identifying internal and external risks to collection program objectives. However, since objectives for the collection program and fairness were not yet clearly defined, such guidance could not be effectively incorporated into risk assessment processes. In March 2017, IRS provided documentation of further actions taken, but the documents did not clearly define and communicate program objectives sufficient for internal control, including risk assessment. In November 2017, IRS provided additional documentation but it did not address case selection fairness or other objectives for the collection program. In June 2019, IRS officials provided information on an ongoing IRS initiative to identify objectives for various programs, but the collection program was not among the pilot programs. As a result, any actions to implement the recommendation will be stalled until the initiative's pilot programs are complete. As of November 2019, IRS had not provided a planned date when it expects to complete them. We will update the status of IRS's plans and actions to implement the recommendation after we complete review of any documents IRS provides, as we requested in December 2019.
GAO-15-752T, Jul 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB issued guidance in June 2019 that provides an overview and timeline for merging DATA Act reporting with implementation of a federal program inventory. To fully address this recommendation, OMB needs to provide additional details on the implementation of these requirements.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: OMB issued several guidance documents in 2019 that set out key aspects of a process for agencies to establish standards for, and practices for governing, managing, and protecting, all federal data. These and related efforts represent significant progress, but OMB needs to ensure this broad guidance is followed by clear and specific requirements for agency data governance to ensure the quality of their DATA Act reporting.
GAO-15-598, Jul 23, 2015
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In 2016, Education published an issue brief about identifying low-performing schools, which referenced GAO's report and the potential risks of limited state action to identify and address low performance. In December 2019, Education provided GAO with a revised data collection instrument for collecting information about states' criteria for identifying low-performing teacher preparation programs. Officials stated that the instrument has been approved by OMB and Education plans to start using it in October 2020. Officials said that the instrument is designed to provide more structured information about state criteria and allow Education to better monitor states' responses from year to year. We are encouraged by these efforts and will revisit the status of this recommendation when the new template is implemented in 2020.
GAO-15-562, Jul 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2623
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agreed with our recommendation. In support of closing this recommendation, officials from BLM re-iterated their policy about sending updates regarding guidance changes, which is included in its directives handbook. They also provided us with an example of its timely communication to BLM employees to announce the issuance of its revised Fund Code Handbook. We reviewed the directives handbook and verified that it contains guidance for communicating policy and procedural changes affecting the mining law program's expenditure-related processes. While the guidance in the directives handbook is a good start towards meeting the intent of our recommendation, we communicated to BLM in fiscal year 2019 that the findings in the report were caused in part by inadequate communication processes and the accessibility of the guidance to staff. To address the recommendation, we would like to see evidence that BLM has established procedures to ensure proper communication of changes or policies to the staff using BLM guidance, which includes having written procedures on how BLM publishes updates or communicates policy information, where guidance should be published in BLM's internal page, and the BLM officials who are in charge of that process. In fiscal year 2020, we have sent additional follow-up questions to the agency and are currently waiting for a response. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-15-518, Jul 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2019, DOL restated its assertion that the employment services most needed by veterans and spouses were already available to them through the state workforce system and should not be offered through another mechanism. DOL pointed to changes in the employment workshops under its Transition Assistance Program, though those changes do not inform the need for any additional services such as Off Base Transition Training workshops. Additionally, DOL noted that Section 502 of the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2016 called for a 5-year longitudinal study of veteran workforce services. DOL concluded a feasibility study in December 2018 and said it will produce a plan to conduct the 5-year longitudinal study, which will inform the extent to which further delivery of employment workshops to veterans and their spouses could fill a niche not fully served by existing federal programs. While completing the feasibility study and planning to conduct the longitudinal study are important steps, DOL has not yet completed that study, nor has it reported to Congress on the extent to which employment workshops might fill a niche not currently served by existing federal programs.
GAO-15-330, Jul 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation to give HUD an oversight role for LIHTC.
GAO-15-531, Jul 8, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6722
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, SSA had taken steps to strengthen internal controls, as GAO recommended in July 2015, but it had not completed its efforts. In January 2020, SSA told GAO that it continues to work with DOL to establish a computer matching agreement to support the FECA data exchange and the agreement is pending at DOL for final review and signature. According to SSA, if the agreement is established, SSA will use the FECA benefit data to improve efficiencies in its ability to offset/reduce DI benefits when an individual is concurrently receiving FECA benefits. GAO will continue to monitor SSA's work in this area. SSA following through with these plans will help the agency identify and prevent potential DI overpayments.
GAO-15-579, Jul 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD officials previously told us that they interpreted relevant guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide them with flexibility to delegate responsibility for conducting these reviews. However, as of July 2020, OMB's guidance continues to clearly state that the agency head and/or Chief Operating Officer, with support of the Performance Improvement Officer, are responsible for leading agency reviews. In May and June 2020, DOD officials described to us meetings that agency officials used to review progress on each of the agency's priority goals. However, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary of Defense were involved in those review meetings. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us actions the agency has taken to conduct reviews consistent with what we recommended. For example, they provided a document confirming that officials reviewed one of the priority goals in an in-person meeting. However, they did not provide documentation to demonstrate that review processes for the agency's other priority goals are held in-person or at least quarterly. We have requested, but as of April 2020 have not received, this additional documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.
Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Comments: The State Department did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, has taken limited actions to address it. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us how the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is involved in reviewing progress on one of the agency's priority goals. However, as of April 2020, the State Department has not provided documentation we requested to corroborate the COO's involvement in this review, or reviews for the agency's other priority goals. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.
GAO-15-509, 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-15-471, Jun 25, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration: Operations Division: Office of Diversion Control: Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Diversion Control
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In September 2019, DEA told us that the agency had refocused its efforts on revising draft regulations in line with the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, and that the revised draft was undergoing internal DEA and Department of Justice review. The agency noted that it expected the rule to codify existing legal obligations related to due diligence and suspicious order reporting and provide additional guidance regarding the nature and timing of the suspicious order reporting requirement, but also indicated that it was not possible to be certain of the precise nature of the draft rule. While DEA has reported taking some actions to address this recommendation, as noted above, until the regulations are finalized we cannot determine if these changes will fully address the recommendation. We will continue to monitor DEA's progress in addressing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Justice: Drug Enforcement Administration: Operations Division: Office of Diversion Control: Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Diversion Control
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2016, DEA reported that it had worked with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy regarding issues raised during stakeholder discussions, which resulted in a March 2015 consensus document published by stakeholders entitled "Stakeholders' Challenges and Red Flag Warning Signs Related to Prescribing and Dispensing Controlled Substances." Additionally, in December 2016 DEA also described other ways in which the agency had been working with pharmacists or associations representing pharmacists to discuss their responsibilities, such as during regional one-day Pharmacy Diversion Awareness Conferences, and quarterly meetings with two pharmacy associations. In February 2018, DEA reported that following input from pharmacists, and representatives of pharmacies and pharmacists, it had revised its existing Pharmacist's Manual. DEA reported in September 2019 that the manual was currently in the final approval process for publication, and that when published, DEA would provide the manual to GAO. Until the updated Pharmacist's Manual is published and we have a chance to review the revisions, we cannot fully assess DEA's actions in this area. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-15-511, Jun 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5741
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this action, and as of December 2019, had taken steps to improve oversight of LQA determinations by DOD components; however, it had not issued guidance that requires the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy or DCPAS to monitor reviews of LQA eligibility determinations by DOD components. At the direction of DCPAS, DOD components completed reviews and submitted reports of overseas allowances paid to a sampling of overseas employees for calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017. According to DCPAS officials, in DOD's 2017 review of overseas allowances, one employee was identified as having erroneously received LQA. This number is lower than the three employees identified during the 2016 review and lower than the 11 employees identified in the 2015 review. Additionally, in September 2019, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy issued a memorandum requesting DOD components to complete a review of overseas allowances and differentials, including LQA, paid to overseas employees during calendar year 2018. In January 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a memorandum that clarified LQA eligibility requirements as applied and interpreted in recent Office of Personnel Management compensation claim decisions and the Department of State Standardized Regulations. The memorandum also required components to screen relevant records and determine if there are any employees who are no longer eligible to receive LQA based on the compensation claim decisions and Department of State Standardized Regulations. Finally, according to DCPAS officials, in December 2019, DOD was revising DOD's LQA instruction to incorporate the new LQA guidance from the January 2018 memorandum. However, it is unclear whether the revised instruction once issued will require the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary or DCPAS to monitor the reviews conducted by DOD components to identify any potentially inconsistent eligibility determinations and ensure corrective action is taken, as was the intent of GAO's recommendation.
GAO-15-480R, May 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-9377
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: During fiscal year 2018, Facilities Management and Security Services (FMSS) established training requirements for non-IRS contractors with unescorted physical access to IRS facilities and communicated these requirements to its employees. However, FMSS did not establish procedures to monitor whether these non-IRS contractors receive the required unauthorized access awareness training. In addition, during our fiscal year 2019 audit, we found instances in which non-IRS contractors with unescorted physical access to an IRS facility did not complete the required training.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. During fiscal year 2017, IRS held a meeting with Submission Processing executives, staff, and the Receipt and Control Operation managers from all five service center campuses (SCC), and as a result of the meeting, IRS developed an action plan to resolve the residual risks associated with candling at the SCCs. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, it will complete the developed action plan.
GAO-15-487, May 22, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2016, DOD officials told us that a new DOEHRS version was released that contained several system enhancements and defect corrections to improve overall data quality in the system. However, as of July 2020, DOD had not provided specific information on these system enhancements, which would allow us to determine whether our recommendation has been fully addressed.
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-15-434, May 21, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS better document the process, including the methods used to review recommendations from the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) and the rationale for final relative value decisions. CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that CMS establishes relative values for new, revised, and potentially misvalued physicians' services based on its review of a variety of sources of information, including the RUC. At that time, CMS officials told us the agency was working to improve the transparency of its process by proposing and finalizing changes to the process in the annual rule for the Physician Fee Schedule. Officials estimated that this process would take several years to complete. In order to close this recommendation as implemented, CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation of its process for establishing relative values. As of June 2020, GAO was still waiting on confirmation from CMS that it had completed its enhancement process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services in a way that would allow for greater transparency and documentation. CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation for establishing relative values in order for GAO to close the recommendation. CMS officials agreed the recommendation should remain open as progress continues.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS develop a process for informing the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), as CMS already does for potentially misvalued services identified by CMS or other stakeholders. CMS did not concur with this recommendation, asserting that the RUC is completely independent of CMS, and as such CMS has no authority to set the RUC's agenda for which services are reviewed. As of June 2020, CMS had not changed its position on the recommendation. We continue to believe that CMS needs to inform the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC, as it does for potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders. We acknowledge that in 2017 CMS changed its process for establishing relative values by including proposed values for almost all services in the annual proposed rulemaking for the Physician Fee Schedule, which means that the changes in values for potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC are open for public comment before they become effective. However, we continue to believe CMS should inform stakeholders of these potentially misvalued services before CMS receives RUC recommendations for them and subsequently publishes the values in the proposed rule. Doing so would give stakeholders the same amount of time they have to provide input on potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS incorporate data and expertise from physicians and other relevant stakeholders into the process, as well as develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA). CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that stakeholders have the opportunity each year to nominate potentially misvalued services for review through a public nomination process. In August 2017, CMS officials reported that the final rulemaking for the 2017 Physician Fee Schedule included a data collection effort using PAMA funds and other authorities that will help furnish data to help in valuations for more than half of physician services. However, this effort pertains to global services, which are a specific type of service under the Physician Fee Schedule that include global, professional, and technical components, and does not apply to non-global services, which encompass almost half of physician services. Officials also reported that they had awarded a contract to explore data collection on practice expense and methodologies for using such data when valuing services in the Physician Fee Schedule. However, CMS did not indicate a specific timeline and plan for using the PAMA funds, just that the agency would continue to use these funds to explore more ways to gain improved data. In March 2018, CMS reported that it now incorporates data and expertise from relevant stakeholders-apart from the RUC-into its process for establishing relative values by including any new, revised, or potentially misvalued values in the annual proposed rulemaking, instead of establishing them on an interim final basis in the final rule. This means that the changes in values for services will be open for public comment prior to the implementation of changes to payment. We acknowledge that CMS has made progress towards meeting our recommendation by changing its process to allow for public comments on proposed changes to relative values before they go into effect. CMS has also made progress by beginning to use PAMA funds to assist with valuing global services and exploring avenues for collecting practice expense data. To close this recommendation, we need documentation that CMS has started to incorporate data more broadly into its process for establishing relative values and that it has a documented timeline and plan for how it will use the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. As of June 2020, we had not received this documentation.
GAO-15-477, May 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD officials concurred with this recommendation and provided an update in May 2019, in which they stated that the office was preparing an issuance for coordination that will direct the services to follow standardized investigation stages and guidance clarifying how the stages are defined. DOD officials estimated that the issuance would be completed by December 31, 2019.
GAO-15-409, Apr 29, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open
Comments: FCC indicated that a draft document was under review to implement this recommendation and would be approved before the end of FY-19. However, in September 2019, when we asked FCC for an update, we did not receive one. We will continue to communicate with FCC about the status of this recommendation.
GAO-15-350, Apr 20, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2019, Naval Supply Systems Command has taken some steps, such as defining the requirement and piloting some aspects of the effort, to incorporate graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reason for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module. However, this capability is not implemented into the automated termination module, according to Naval Supply Systems Command officials. Navy Supply Systems Command provided information on its plans to implement this capability in fiscal year 2020 and we will continue to monitor their efforts to address this implementation.
GAO-15-368, Apr 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In comments printed in the April 2015 final report, HHS concurred with the recommendation and stated that it would review current links to guidance documents and explore ways to enhance their visibility and usability. As of June 2020, GAO is working with HHS officials to obtain additional updates and documentation regarding the department's implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-15-39, Apr 7, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, Interior officials stated BLM will not be conducting a separate internal review of the guidance for commingling agreement requests issued in July 2013. However, officials stated they are committed to performing the internal review as part of the internal review on its inspection and enforcement program and believed their pending actions related to implementing the recommendations in the GAO report "Oil and Gas Development: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of the Inspection and Enforcement Program" (GAO-19-7) would also address this recommendation. Interior officials stated the target date for implementing this recommendation is June 30, 2021.
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-15-337, Mar 19, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2700
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: During our audit of IRS's FY 2019 financial statements, , the agency submitted this recommendation for closure, but our testing determined it should remain open. Subsequently, IRS updated its anticipated closure date for the recommendation to July 2020. As part of our FY 2020 audit, we will continue to monitor IRS's progress in ensuring that its control testing methodology and results fully meet the intent of the control objectives being tested.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: During the audit of IRS's FY 2019 financial statements, the agency submitted this recommendation for closure, but our testing determined that it should remain open. While IRS continued to make positive steps to address our recommendation, the agency's implementation of corrective actions did not fully address it. As part of our FY 2020 audit, we will continue to monitor IRS's progress in strengthening its remedial action verification process and ensuring its corrective actions are fully implemented.
GAO-15-274, Mar 16, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations to require that conveyance statuses be tracked, which could include requiring DOD to track and share disposal actions with HUD and requiring HUD to track the status following disposal. In a December 2017 follow up, DOD stated that it plans to address our recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. DOD added that it will work closely with the military Departments and HUD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD generally concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations to require that conveyance statuses be tracked, which could include requiring DOD to track and share disposal actions with HUD and requiring HUD to track the status following disposal. HUD stated that it is willing to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations to track the conveyances of property for homeless assistance, but noted that it will require DOD agreement to do so because the regulations are joint. In a March 2018 follow up, HUD stated it will address GAO recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD added it would be premature to make any changes to current implementing policies or regulations which could be impacted by new BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD stated it will work closely with the military departments and DOD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include specific guidance that clearly identifies the information that should be provided to homeless assistance providers during tours of on-base property, such as the condition of the property. DOD stated that while it already provides generic information about the property, the LRAs and interested homeless assistance providers can undertake facility assessments following the tours. However, DOD did not provide additional detail or explanation about how it would provide information about the condition of the property or access to it. In a December 2017 follow up, DOD stated that it plans to address our recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. DOD added that it will work closely with the military Departments and HUD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD generally concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include specific guidance that clearly identifies the information that should be provided to homeless assistance providers during tours of on-base property, such as the condition of the property. HUD stated that it will update its BRAC guidebook, website, and presentations to provide clarifying information for homeless assistance providers regarding what information should be included during tours of on-base property. HUD also noted in its response that this will require DOD and military department agreement to implement and that the provision of information about the condition of on-base property and access to that property is under the purview of the military department. In a March 2018 follow up, HUD stated it will address GAO recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD added it would be premature to make any changes to current implementing policies or regulations which could be impacted by new BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD stated it will work closely with the military departments and DOD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include information for homeless assistance providers to use in preparing their notices of interest. In its response, DOD stated that the existing regulatory guidance is adequate for providers' expressions of interest, given that these expressions evolve as the redevelopment planning effort proceeds and they learn more about the property. In a December 2017 follow up, DOD officials stated that they will not take action because they believe this is a community-driven action. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD generally concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include information for homeless assistance providers to use in preparing their notices of interest. HUD stated that it will update its BRAC guidebook, website, and presentations to provide clarifying information for homeless assistance providers to use in preparing their notices of interest. HUD also stated that it considered the current regulations and BRAC guidebook sufficient to inform providers as long as LRAs did not place additional requirements, which may create an undue burden for providers. In a March 2018 follow up, HUD stated it will address GAO recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD added it would be premature to make any changes to current implementing policies or regulations which could be impacted by new BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD stated it will work closely with the military departments and DOD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include guidance for legally binding agreements and clarification on the implications of unsigned agreements. DOD did not commit to taking any actions to provide this information and instead noted that any action should ensure that a legally binding agreement does not bind DOD to disposal actions it is unable to carry out. Nothing in the recommendation requires DOD to sign an agreement it cannot carry out. DOD further noted that the purpose of the legally binding agreement is to provide remedies and recourse for the LRA and provider in carrying out an accommodation following property disposal. In a December 2017 follow up, DOD stated that it plans to address our recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. DOD added that it will work closely with the military Departments and HUD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD generally concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include guidance for legally binding agreements and clarification on the implications of unsigned agreements. HUD stated that it will update its BRAC guidebook, website, and presentations to provide clarifying information for homeless assistance providers to use in preparing legally binding agreements and on the implications of unsigned agreements. In a March 2018 follow up, HUD stated it will address GAO recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD added it would be premature to make any changes to current implementing policies or regulations which could be impacted by new BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD stated it will work closely with the military departments and DOD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include specific information on legal alternatives to providing on-base property, including acceptable alternative options such as financial assistance or off-base property in lieu of on-base property, information about rules of sale for on-base property conveyed to homeless assistance providers, and under what circumstances it is permissible to sell property for affordable housing alongside the no-cost homeless assistance conveyance. In its response, DOD stated that providers may only be considered through specific expressions of interest in surplus BRAC property, and these suggested alternatives may only be considered within the context of what is legally permissible given the specific circumstances at each installation. Further, DOD noted in its response that HUD may provide examples of alternatives to on-base property that have been approved to date as part of a local accommodation to offer examples for LRAs and providers. In a December 2017 follow up, DOD officials stated that they will not take action because they believe this is a community-driven action. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD generally concurred with the recommendation to update the BRAC homeless assistance regulations, establish information-sharing mechanisms, or develop templates to include specific information on legal alternatives to providing on-base property, including acceptable alternative options such as financial assistance or off-base property in lieu of on-base property, information about rules of sale for on-base property conveyed to homeless assistance providers, and under what circumstances it is permissible to sell property for affordable housing alongside the no-cost homeless assistance conveyance. HUD stated that it will update its BRAC guidebook, website, and presentations to clarify that the use of off-base property and financial assistance are acceptable alternate means of homeless assistance accommodation in base redevelopment plans and to include examples of alternatives to on-base property that have been approved to date. HUD also stated that this will require DOD and military department agreement to implement. In a March 2018 follow up, HUD stated it will address GAO recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD added it would be premature to make any changes to current implementing policies or regulations which could be impacted by new BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD stated it will work closely with the military departments and DOD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: HUD generally concurred with the recommendation to develop options to address the use of staff resources dedicated to the reviews of bases during a BRAC round, such as assigning temporary headquarters staff or utilizing current field HUD staff. HUD stated that it temporarily assigned headquarters staff and utilized field office staff during the 2005 round of BRAC. HUD also stated that, in the event of another BRAC round the size of 2005, it would encourage Congress to allocate funding for appropriate temporary staff resources to assist the department in meeting important timelines. In a March 2018 follow up, HUD stated it will address GAO recommendations regarding the BRAC homeless assistance process when Congress provides BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD added it would be premature to make any changes to current implementing policies or regulations which could be impacted by new BRAC authorizing legislation. HUD stated it will work closely with the military departments and DOD staff in the process of revising the implementing regulation. As of May 2019, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.
GAO-15-226, Feb 26, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In September 2016, the Marine Corps established a Customer Wait Time (CWT) standard and developed CWT metrics that are in alignment with DOD policy. These changes were to be incorporated into Marine Corps policy through their normal Service procedures. As of August 2020, the Marine Corps has the CWT standard included in its new policy document, but the policy is going through internal coordination and is still in draft at this time. Current timeframe for publication is January 2021. Once we confirm the CWT standard is in the issued policy, we will close the recommendation.
GAO-15-314, Feb 24, 2015
Phone: (617) 788-0580
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: In its initial response, Education noted it has already taken steps to implement this recommendation, such as a comprehensive assessment to identify the causes of the conversions and the grants affected. After identifying the reasons, the agency worked with current grant servicer to ensure accuracy and make sure they understood program requirements. Regarding time frames for transferring the converted loans, in September 2017, Education provided documentation that the loan conversions were transferred to one servicer in December 2014. In 2018, Education provided additional information on the comprehensive assessment it conducted including the results, a work plan to address the erroneous conversions, and sample letters to recipients they deemed eligible for reconversion. Two changes, however, are currently underway which could affect past and future erroneous conversions. In December 2018, Education announced a process for grant recipients to request reconsideration if their grant was converted in error. Additionally, in 2018, Education's Negotiated Rulemaking Committee began discussing TEACH Grant requirements and ways to reduce and correct the inadvertent conversion of grants to loans, among other things. In April 2019, the subcommittee reached consensus on the proposed rule language, which allowed for erroneous loan conversions to be reversed under certain conditions. As of November 2019, Education has not yet published proposed rules for the TEACH Grant program, and it is unclear the extent to which all eligible recipients will be provided adequate opportunity to have the errors corrected. Given the substantial and ongoing changes to the program administration this recommendation remains open.
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-15-112, Jan 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In response to our report, in December 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-302, which, among other things, provides a means for FBI employees to obtain corrective action for retaliation for disclosures of wrongdoing made to supervisors and others in the employees' chain of command. Following this, the FBI worked closely with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) to develop a training that clearly identifies to whom FBI employees may make protected disclosures. In addition, the FBI issued an aligned policy directive and two fact sheets detailing whistleblower rights. In October 2018, a DOJ official reported to us that the department was in the process of updating its regulations and, in February 2020, DOJ officials confirmed that the updated regulation was in the departmental clearance process but they could not provide an estimate for when it would be finalized. As a result, as of February 2020, DOJ's regulations have not been updated and are inconsistent with the current statute and FBI's guidance and training; as such, the problem of unclear or conflicting guidance to FBI employees still needs to be addressed. To address this recommendation, DOJ would need to update its regulations and ensure that all relevant guidance is clear and consistent across the department.
GAO-15-59, Dec 22, 2014
Phone: (617) 788-0534
Agency: Department of Education
Status: Open
Comments: Education agreed with this recommendation, noting that it is committed to identifying ways to use data about and from accreditors in its oversight. As of December 2017, Education has taken steps to track the number of accreditor sanctions issued by each accrediting agency. Education previously noted that this information will then be used to focus their limited resources on those accrediting agencies with extremely low or high sanction rates, to strengthen its oversight of accreditors. In April 2018, Education reported that it tracks accreditor sanctions and is aware of the number of sanctions when conducting agency reviews. They found no correlation between the number of sanctions an accrediting agency levies against its accredited institutions and compliance or noncompliance with the Criteria for Recognition, so they noted that this is not a useful tool. However, we continue to believe that implementing the recommendation could help inform Education's reviews of accreditors and ultimately reduce potential risk to students and federal funds. For example, analyses of accreditor sanction data could help reveal patterns in individual accreditor behavior and overall trends in sanctions. In addition, as we noted in the report, Education could compare accreditor sanction data with outcome data for accreditors' member institutions. These analyses could help Education determine how to better use data in decision-making, which is a goal listed in their 2014 strategic plan (cited in the report), as well as help to identify potential risks the accreditors might face. To close this recommendation, Education should show that it uses sanction data to inform its discussions of accreditor recognition and oversight.
GAO-15-200, Dec 22, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation. Following a May 2015 Federal Acquisition Regulation update to reflect the requirements of Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy drafted supplementary information for an update of the agency's Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) that was considered and rejected by Defense Acquisition Regulation Council. In July 2019, the Office of Defense Pricing and Contracting reported that new PGI guidance would be drafted that will require management reviews to consider compliance with Section 802 requirements included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. As of August 2020, we have been unable to determine the status of this guidance.
GAO-15-51, Nov 20, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance prioritizes an activities-based approach to identifying and addressing potential risks to financial stability and states that FSOC will pursue company-specific determinations only if the activities-based approach is not sufficient. The guidance further states that if FSOC does consider a company-specific determination, its evaluation will focus primarily on the first determination standard. The guidance does not indicate the establishment of procedures to evaluate companies under both determination standards for the purpose of comprehensively identifying and considering companies or to document why the other standard is not relevant. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance introduces a new stage 1 of the designation process in which FSOC would notify a nonbank financial company under review and consider available public and regulatory information. While the guidance states that a company under review in stage 1 may submit information it deems relevant to the evaluation, FSOC would not require the company to submit information during stage 1. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the revised guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.
GAO-15-82, Nov 19, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, we have followed up with the department to request documentation but have not yet received evidence of DHS's planned actions to address this recommendation.
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-15-54, Oct 8, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA has taken some actions. For example, SBA created a standard operating procedure stating that third-party certifiers are subject to a compliance review by SBA at any time, and SBA has completed a review of the four authorized third-party certifiers. We continue to monitor SBA actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA has created a standard operating procedure that includes some procedures for annual eligibility examinations. We continue to monitor SBA actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-14-732, Sep 18, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS has taken actions to implement GAO's September 2014 recommendation, but the definition IRS provided is not likely to help it analyze results from audits of the very large partnerships that GAO's report covered. In September 2017, IRS defined large partnerships as those with assets of $10 million or more, without regard to the number of partners. With changes to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 partnership audit procedures and enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) (sections 1101 and 1102 of Public Law 114-74), IRS officials said that the number of partners is no longer a critical factor when defining a large partnership. IRS is correct that the number of partners is no longer relevant to this statutory definition of large partnership. The recently eliminated Electing Large Partnerships audit procedures had defined large partnerships as those with 100 or more direct partners in a taxable year. Even so, IRS's new definition of large partnerships is limited compared to large corporations. IRS has defined eight asset categories for tracking large corporation audit results while it has one for large partnerships, which vary widely based on asset amounts and complex structures. As GAO reported, during tax years 2002 through 2011, the number of large partnerships with 100 or more direct and indirect partners as well as $100 million or more in assets more than tripled to 10,099, some of which had assets exceeding $5 billion. In tax year 2011, more than two-thirds of these large partnerships had at least 100 or more pass-through entities as direct and indirect partners. Until IRS develops a more expansive definition of large partnerships, IRS may have challenges analyzing the results from its audits of large partnerships. As of January 2020, IRS had revised its activity codes to create a category for its large partnership definition as well as created a reporting and monitoring structure for its new definition to track the results from auditing large partnerships. IRS also created reports to regularly track audit results (e.g., dollar amounts, hours, number of returns, campus versus field locations) for this one category. IRS officials said they plan to use the reports to analyze audit results to identify opportunities to better plan and use resources in auditing large partnerships but this outcome may not be possible with the statutory changes governing partnerships. Given the challenges involving such audits, IRS officials said they have started efforts to better select partnership returns for audits based on compliance risk. They said these efforts will extend at least through fiscal year 2021. Thus, IRS does not yet know whether the audit results will be sufficient to analyze ways to better plan and use IRS audit resources as well as to analyze noncompliance risk for its new definition. IRS's analysis may not be able to achieve these ends with only one asset category to cover the wide range of asset amounts above $10 million.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, IRS created a reporting and monitoring structure for its new large partnership definition to track the results from auditing large partnerships. IRS also created reports to regularly track audit results (e.g., dollar amounts, hours, number of returns, campus versus field locations) for this one category. IRS officials said they plan to use the reports to analyze audit results to identify opportunities to better plan and use resources in auditing large partnerships but this outcome may not be possible with the statutory changes governing partnerships. Thus, IRS does not yet know whether the audit results will be sufficient to analyze ways to better plan and use IRS audit resources as well as to analyze noncompliance risk for its new definition. IRS's analysis may not be able to achieve these ends with only one asset category to cover the wide range of asset amounts above $10 million. Given these and other challenges involving such audits, IRS officials said they have started efforts to better select partnership returns for audits based on compliance risk. They said these efforts will extend at least through fiscal year 2021.
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-14-699, Aug 21, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corps developed a list of projects for deauthorization in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Section 1001, and provided the list to OMB for clearance on January 26, 2018. Additionally, on December 9, 2019, the Corps reported that it provided a list of projects eligible for deauthorization in FY 2020 to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for review. Upon approval, the list will be sent to OMB for clearance. After receiving OMB clearance, according to the Corps, the list will be provided to Congress and the public in accordance with WRDA. As of July 2020, we are continuing to monitor the Corps' progress in implementing the recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and as of December 2016, a task order has been awarded for a contractor to prepare a comprehensive inventory of studies authorized by statute. The Corps reported that once the comprehensive inventory of studies is complete, the Corps will develop policies and procedures for the study deauthorization process and those policies and procedures will be used to carry out the process of deauthorizing studies. In March 2020, the Corps reported that it was working to develop a scheduled for providing us with a list of studies eligible for deathorization. As of July 2020, we are continuing to monitor the Corps' progress in implementing the recommendation.
GAO-14-500, Jul 10, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not issued guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC, as GAO recommended in July 2014. However, Treasury has taken steps toward addressing this action. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), which administers the NMTC program, completed new empirical research assessing the extent to which other government programs are being combined with the NMTC. The findings of this research (issued in August 2017) indicate that some NMTC projects, especially those using other government funds to leverage the NMTC, potentially received more government funds than needed to close a financing gap. As of January 2020, CDFI Fund officials said that they intend to solicit public comments on additional data to be collected from the Community Development Entities before using these data to identify NMTC-financed projects that may have excessive public funding. Once fully implemented, these additional actions could help ensure that low-income community projects do not receive more government assistance than required to finance a project.
GAO-14-410, Jul 2, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: According to HUD officials, Ginnie Mae and FHA met to discuss their manufactured housing programs and produced a white paper. Once we receive a copy of the white paper, we will determine if it addresses our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2018, HUD stated that the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs continues to work toward fully implementing both the installation and dispute resolution programs in the default states using two new contractors for these purposes. As the implementation of these programs continues to mature, HUD stated that its Office of Manufactured Housing Programs will be monitoring program requirements and service delivery and gathering data that it can use in assessing the feasibility of putting in place user fees for these programs. We will continue to monitor HUD's progress in implementing our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In response to this recommendation, as of March 2018, HUD plans to consider user fee reserve best practices in evaluating any carryover balances and developing future operating budgets for its manufactured housing programs. The Office of Manufactured Housing Programs plans on reviewing best practices and determining next steps ideally by the end of Fiscal Year 2019. We continue to believe that setting clear goals for the reserve and clarifying how those reserves will be used helps ensure accountability and transparency both to Congress and users of fee-based programs. We will continue to monitor HUD's progress in implementing our recommendation.
GAO-14-543, Jun 19, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3406
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Over the past few years, Treasury has made progress by (1) improving the accounting for and reporting of General Fund transactions and balances, (2) working to resolve significant differences between the General Fund and federal entity trading partners, and (3) including differences involving General Fund activity and balances in the quarterly scorecard process. However, significant differences between the General Fund and federal entity trading partners existed as of the end of fiscal year 2019. Also, Treasury continues to work on obtaining audit assurance on the activity and balances. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury did not perform corrective actions in FY 2019 to address this recommendation. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
GAO-14-412, Jun 11, 2014
Phone: (404) 679-1816
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Navy should have followed the policy that requires the decision memorandum, but did not do so because of "compressed timelines." DOD added that it would ensure the completion of decision memorandums for any future early decommissioning recommendations. We have been unable to determine whether DOD has implemented this recommendation since our report was issued. Most recently, DOD has not responded to our October 2019 request for an update. Given the significance of this recommendation, we will continue to leave it open until we are satisfied that DOD has or has not implemented it.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that although it recognizes the importance of engaging with congressional stakeholders, it did not do so regarding its decommissioning decisions because those decisions were made in the context of budget development. DOD's comments added that until the Secretary of Defense and the President have approved the budget request, all such actions are predecisional and internal, and therefore are not discussed with Congress. DOD also disagreed with the part of our recommendation to require that its early decommissioning decision memorandums specifically address capacity as well as capability gaps, stating that by definition a decommissioning creates a capacity gap. Since our report was issued, we have been unable to determine the extent to which DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation. Most recently, DOD has not responded to our October 2019 request for an update. Given the significance of this recommendation, we will continue to leave it open until we can determine whether DOD has or has not taken steps to implement it.
GAO-14-479, Jun 5, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7968
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS correspondence audit program officials planned a working group to develop formal program objectives. In November 2016, IRS officials provided documents intended to define the program objectives, but the objectives were unclear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided draft program objectives to GAO for discussion and are responding to comments from GAO. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS officials said that, among other actions, they plan to review and update program documentation and guidance as warranted to ensure a clear link between correspondence audit program objectives and related measures. IRS officials provided documentation in November 2016, but program measures could not be clearly linked to objectives because the objectives were not clear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided draft measures for their draft program objectives to GAO and are responding to comments from GAO. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: IRS officials said that, among other actions, they plan to review and update program documentation and guidance as warranted to ensure that program measures clearly link to IRS strategic goals. IRS officials provided documentation in November 2016,but measures for the program could not be clearly linked to either the program objectives or IRS goals because the objectives were not clear. As of December 2019, IRS officials provided GAO with draft linkages to IRS's strategic goals for the draft measures and program objectives and are responding to comments from GAO on those linkages. We will update the status when IRS provides any further supporting documentation, as we requested in March 2020.
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-14-288, Mar 31, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of May 2020, the Department of Agriculture has not taken action to implement this recommendation.
GAO-14-368, Mar 3, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In 2014, CBP expanded its Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan to the Southwest Border Technology Plan. In February 2015, the Border Patrol took steps to address this recommendation by developing the Capability Gap Analysis Process (CGAP) with the support of Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Lab to examine the effects of technology and other assets. In May 2017, Border Patrol officials demonstrated a new system, intended to allow for more comprehensive analysis of the contributions of surveillance technologies to Border Patrol's mission during the CGAP process. As of March 2019, Border Patrol is now able to generate a performance report, using data collected from multiple systems, on how surveillance technologies have assisted agents during operations, including Border Patrol apprehensions. In February 2020 Border Patrol officials stated the data gathered in the report were reliable. They also provided examples of how they use available performance data to help identify gaps in capabilities and inform future investments in surveillance technologies. Border Patrol officials are also developing a surveillance capability score intended to represent the combined contributions of individual technology assets and agents on patrol to conduct surveillance in a given area. Border Patrol plans to report this score in fiscal year 2021, according to documentation provided by Border Patrol. We view these efforts, as described, as important progress toward fulfilling our recommendation, and will review the planned surveillance capability score once it is implemented to determine whether Border Patrol has fully implemented our 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-14-194, Feb 10, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, FDA told us that it was using its drug shortage data system, the "Shortage Tracker," to summarize information reported by manufacturers as the reasons for existing shortages. The agency indicated that it was developing a model that would factor in drug shortage data, warning signs identified through social media, and other factors to help identify early indicators that may predict future shortages. In July 2019, the agency indicated it could conduct periodic analyses of the causes of drug shortages. However, FDA had not yet proactively conducted any rigorous analyses of predictors of drug shortages to help recognize trends, clarify causes, and resolve problems before drugs go into short supply. In an August 2020 written response, FDA reported that it was undertaking modeling efforts to explore the feasibility of predicting future drug shortages using machine learning approaches. FDA planned to complete the initial modeling by fall 2020, at which time it would identify next steps. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
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-14-58, Nov 26, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-2623
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: To address the recommendation, OMB should issue guidance on internal control for disaster relief funding, including criteria for identifying additional risks and mitigating controls related to the funding and a requirement to link these incremental risks to ongoing efforts to address known internal control risks. On July 15, 2016, OMB issued the revised Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control. The Circular requires agencies to implement enterprise risk management, which includes the development of a risk profile that analyzes the risks faced in achieving strategic objectives and identifies options for addressing them. In April 2017, OMB staff stated that they believe that the implementation of enterprise risk management through Circular No. A-123 satisfies the intent our recommendation. Because the responsibility for implementing enterprise risk management lies with agency management, Circular No. A-123 does not include specific guidance for identifying risks related to disaster funding. Further discussion and documentation to support OMB's position that the revised Circular addresses our recommendation will be necessary. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Sec. 21208(c) requires OMB to issue standard guidance for Federal agencies to use in designing internal control plans for disaster relief funding in order to proactively prepare for oversight of future disaster relief funds. The Act states this guidance shall leverage existing internal control review processes and shall include, at a minimum, (1) robust criteria for identifying and documenting incremental risks and mitigating controls related to the funding, and (2) guidance for documenting the linkage between the incremental risks related to disaster funding and efforts to address known internal control risks. GAO reviewed OMB's actions to implement the law. On June 28, 2019, GAO, 2017 Disaster Relief Oversight: Strategy Needed to Ensure Agencies' Internal Control Plans Provide Sufficient Information, GAO-19-479 (Washington, D.C.: Jun 28, 2019) reported the 2013 recommendation remains open and that we plan to continue monitoring OMB's progress in implementing this priority recommendation. Further, the report stated that OMB did not have an effective strategy to ensure that agencies timely submitted internal control plans; and OMB's Memorandum M-18-14, Implementation of Internal Controls and Grant Expenditures for the Disaster-Related Appropriations lacked specific instructions to agencies on what to include in their internal control plans. As such, a new recommendation was warranted. As of February 2020, OMB has not provided any new status updates for this recommendation.
GAO-14-15, Nov 6, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS officials had previously indicated that DHS's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) and Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis (OCIA) have discussed an update of the GPS risk assessment. Additionally, information from DHS shows that DHS has continued other efforts to collect potentially relevant threat, vulnerability, and consequence data for various GPS equipment in use. For example, according to DHS officials, DHS has conducted visits to major maritime, finance, wireless communications, and electricity firms to gauge their understanding of GPS vulnerabilities and of technology- and strategy-based efforts to improve GPS resilience, and DHS documentation shows that DHS has held events to test GPS receivers as part of assessing vulnerabilities. In August 2020, DHS officials provided GAO with additional information regarding their progress on implementing the recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation after we review the additional information from DHS.
GAO-13-760, Sep 24, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service: National Institutes of Health
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 7, 2015, NIH provided some information indicating that it had taken action to address our recommendation by tracking the size of indirect costs as a proportion of NIH's overall budget as part of the agency's annual budget planning process and risk assessment program. However, we determined that the actions did not fully address the recommendation because they focus on the agency's overall budget and do not assess the potential ongoing impact of indirect costs for universities on its mission. As of September 2018, NIH officials have not informed us of any additional actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-13-722, Sep 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, Congress had not yet acted on this matter for consideration.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Federal Housing Administration
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, HUD had not yet acted on this recommendation.
GAO-13-661, Sep 9, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. As of March 2016, DOD had not implemented this recommendation and stated that the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan currently provide sufficient guidance in this regard. As of March 2019, DOD has decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to DOD Corrosion Office officials, they plan to list measures of achievement for the military departments to follow on the departments' corrosion project in a new DOD manual on corrosion. The Office's goal is to create this new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
GAO-13-698, Aug 22, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-9619
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of 18 Aug 2014, the Army and Marine Corps actions for this recommendation are currently ongoing and the recommendation status currently remains open. On 14 June 2014, the DOD Inspector General reported in the Defense Audit Management Information System that "the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense(Readiness) developed a decision algorithm to determine which military tasks could be taught virtually and which military tasks should only be taught in classroom or field environments (i.e., live). The algorithm was provided to the Services for peer-review and possible implementation. The Army is reviewing its progressive training models through a process called Training Summit IV (TS IV). These models establish how virtual and constructive based training is integrated with live training to optimize training readiness. The TS IV will include training model review by proponent schools, as well as a cross-section of unit commanders and leaders. This effort will be completed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and presented for validation and G-3/5/7 approval at the Army Training General Officer Steering Committee in November 2014. Also, the Marine Corps initiated a request for an internal servicewide study of existing and potential approaches to this topic (4th Quarter FY 2013). The initial focus is in determining how metrics can be better used to assess the impact of simulation based on meeting Marine Corps Training Standards. Furthermore, a targeted study began in the 1st Quarter FY 2014 and is focused initially on enhancing the methodology for assessing individual based simulators against Training and Readiness (T&R) Standards. In FY 2015, the study results will shape policy on how future T&R manuals will identify the appropriateness of simulators and simulations for training."
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of 18 Aug 2014, the Army and Marine Corps actions for this recommendation are currently ongoing and the recommendation status currently remains open. On 14 June 2014, the DOD Inspector General reported in the Defense Audit Management Information System that "the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) has coordinated with the Army and Marine Corps to identify standard approaches to capture costs and cost benefit analysis that could be used DoD-wide. The Army has undertaken a "cost of training" analysis that is an on-going action to determine cost of readiness and/or training. One area of concentration is to look at the "Other Burdened Resources Required for Training Readiness." This area is further broken down into two areas: Investment/Modernization and Installation Services. The Investment/Modernization area will look at Non-System Training Aids, Devices, Simulators and Simulations while Installation Services will look at Post Deployment Software Support. In addition, the Army is gathering data to validate an existing model developed by the Simulations to Mission Command Interoperability Director (Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation) for the Value of Simulation Study consisting of five phases: Phase one focused on development of a working methodology to assess both quantitative and qualitative value of simulations used to support collective training (completed). Phase two is currently gathering data for model validation. Phase three will be an expansion to other simulation capabilities. Phase four is data gathering and validation. Phase five is expanded testing/methodology use case study/validation for return on investment use. The Marine Corps established a study, described in response to Recommendation 1, which will evaluate and propose the initial cost factors not currently captured during Programming yet would be relevant in determining the appropriate mix of live and simulated training. The initial results are expected in FY 2015."
GAO-13-662, Aug 22, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-9110
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, IRS had taken some steps to implement this August 2013 recommendation, but had not developed a plan to track and reinvest any savings. IRS provided documents from October 2019 which discussed how portfolio management is used as a tool to prioritize and allocate time to eight compliance program areas, including CAP. IRS officials explained that any hours saved in a compliance program area are reallocated to the same or another compliance program area based on the division's strategic priorities rather than a plan focusing on CAP. Furthermore, CAP has not yet achieved the desired outcome of saving resources, according to IRS. If IRS finds any savings from CAP, it will need to develop a plan for reinvesting it to expand audit coverage. Without a plan for tracking savings and using them to increase audit coverage, IRS cannot be assured that the savings are effectively invested in either CAP or non-CAP taxpayers with a high compliance risk.
GAO-13-603, Jul 24, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2017, CBP's Office of Field Operations began working with a contractor to develop a comprehensive CBP position allocation methodology and tool. According to CBP officials, the purpose of this tool was to ensure a data driven, transparent process for allocating CBP resources--including staff--to land ports of entry on the southwest border. CBP officials stated that the contractor completed the tool in January 2018, CBP tested the tool in fiscal year 2018, and CBP planned to implement the tool in fiscal year 2019. However, CBP officials told us in September 2020 that a subsequent reorganization of the Office of Field Operations rendered the tool unusable without further modification. As a result, they used a manual method to allocate staff in fiscal year 2020 and plan to do the same in fiscal year 2021. As of September 2020, CBP officials planned to document the methodology and process they are now using to allocate staff to land ports of entry, including rationales and factors considered, by November 2020. This recommendation remains open.
GAO-13-621, Jul 18, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: SEC management and the union agreed in November 2018 to implement a new performance management system and a new incentive bonus program in 2020. According to SEC officials, SEC plans to work with OPM to validate the new performance management system by conducting focus groups with staff at the midpoint of the 2020 appraisal period and surveying staff on the new system at the conclusion of the 2020 appraisal period. These plans are consistent with our 2013 recommendation that SEC should conduct periodic validations of its performance management system. In August 2020, SEC reported that it began implementation of the new 2-tier performance management program and will complete the annual rating cycle in December 2020, with feedback and appraisal closeout activities occurring in early calendar year 2021. According to SEC, OPM will assess the new program after calendar year 2020 performance cycle activities are completed. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress in validating the new performance management system.
GAO-13-540, Jun 28, 2013
Phone: (202)512-8815
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury continued to develop its budget deficit/surplus and cash reconciliation procedures. Specifically, Treasury performed a preliminary analysis on several federal entities' implementation of the new Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 53, Budget and Accrual Reconciliation (BAR), and noted inconsistencies in the way each entity populated line items in the BAR. Treasury and OMB provided additional guidance for the BAR in OMB Circular No. A-136 and on the Treasury U.S. Standard General Ledger website, including a BAR crosswalk template. However, additional work is needed to reconcile line items to audited federal entity financial statements. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury continued to make improvements in fiscal year 2019 by implementing procedures, publishing guidance, and developing new transaction codes to improve the accounting for and reporting of General Fund transactions and balances that Treasury uses to compute the budget deficit reported in the consolidated financial statements. However, additional work is needed in determining the appropriate presentation for the reconciling items, which could affect the line items included. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
GAO-13-534, Jun 28, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In April 2017, the Director of NNSA Office of Policy issued guidance to NNSA Laboratory Field Office Managers to update contracts to include a new clause requiring laboratory contractors to submit a strategic plan every year in accordance with guidance. Part of the annual plan requires contractors to discuss the costs of doing business and cost-increase factors at the sites, including overhead dollars. The annual strategic plan is due to the NNSA Office of Policy by August 15 each year. The annual strategic plans included information on indirect costs and cost drivers, but did not include benchmarking. We again requested information on the benchmarking requirements, if any, in July 2020.
GAO-13-270, May 31, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7968
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open
Comments: On July 24, 2013, DOD reported that it non-concurred with our recommendation. DOD reported that the Military Department Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives are given the freedom to manage their programs in the most efficient and effective manner for their respective departments. Additionally, DOD reported that the Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives know the reporting requirements and are working closely with the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office and the project managers to ensure reports are submitted in accordance with the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Therefore, DOD reported that further guidance is not necessary as the requirements are already clearly stated in the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan. Our audit work showed that DOD's strategic plan and guidance do not define a role for the Corrosion Executives in assisting the Corrosion Office in the project reporting process. Our recommendation was intended to fortify the role of Corrosion Executives in ensuring that project management offices within the Corrosion Executives' respective military departments submit project reports as required in the strategic plan. We continue to believe that the Corrosion Executives could provide the additional management oversight necessary to strengthen corrosion project reporting. In May 2016, the Senate Armed Services Committee informed us that it have included language in its National Defense Authorization Act Bill for fiscal year 2017. Specifically, the language reads: SEC. 312. REVISION OF GUIDANCE RELATED TO CORROSION CONTROL AND PREVENTION EXECUTIVES. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, shall revise corrosion-related guidance to clearly define the role of the corrosion control and prevention executives of the military departments in assisting the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight in holding the appropriate project management office in each military department accountable for submitting the report required under section 903(b)(5) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 10 U.S.C. 2228 note) with an expanded emphasis on infrastructure, as required in the long-term strategy of the Department of Defense under section 2228(d) of title 10, United States Code. As of October 2016, legislation was not passed. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to Corrosion Office officials, they will include a definition of the military departments' Corrosion Executives' role in: an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure), a new DOD manual on corrosion, an update to the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, and an update to the Corrosion Prevention Control Integrated Product Team charter. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete these updates and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
GAO-13-480, May 24, 2013
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS has taken some steps to implement this May 2013 recommendation. In September 2015, IRS completed a study on whether to transcribe more data from paper-filed returns. IRS officials said the study showed that the benefits to be derived from additional transcription are not significant and would not outweigh the added cost. That study did not provide specific information about the costs and benefits of transcribing information from Schedules C and E. In December 2018, IRS provided a cost-benefit estimate for transcribing all data from Schedules C and E and concluded that the cost of transcribing all additional Schedule C and Schedule E lines would exceed the expected benefits. This analysis satisfied the first part of GAO's recommendation. However, the study did not address whether transcribing certain, select lines on Schedules C and E would be cost-effective, as GAO's recommendation suggested. Having specific data transcribed and electronically available likely will improve the classification of audits as well as the quality of the audits, according to examiners GAO spoke with for the report. As of March 2020, GAO continues to monitor IRS's progress.
GAO-13-420R, May 13, 2013
Phone: (202)512-9377
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. In October 2019, the functions within the Small Business/Self-Employed organization completed risk assessments to determine the appropriate level of Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS) access that should be granted to the employees who handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive taxpayer information as part of their job responsibilities. In addition, IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, the Taxpayer Advocate Service organization, in coordination with the Information Technology organization, as necessary, will complete a risk assessment of all employee groups that handle hard-copy taxpayer receipts and related sensitive taxpayer information to determine the most appropriate level of IDRS access.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that by October 2020, the Small Business/Self-Employed, Taxpayer Advocate Service, and Tax Exempt & Government Entities organizations will work with the Information Technology organization, as necessary, to ensure that the applicable Internal Revenue Manual section(s) are revised for any policy changes on (1) risk mitigation, including specifying the appropriate level of Integrated Data Retrieval System access that should be allowed and (2) risk acceptance for affected employee groups, as needed.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that by October 2020, the Small Business/Self-Employed, Taxpayer Advocate Service, and Tax Exempt & Government Entities organizations will work with the Information Technology organization, as necessary, to establish procedures to prevent affected employees from gaining access to command codes not required as part of their designated job duties, as needed.
GAO-13-247, Mar 21, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, a HUD official told us that the agency did not have the funding necessary to make any changes to IDIS. According to this official, HUD was willing to create the recommended across-program report, but did not have the information technology funding required to make other, higher-priority changes to IDIS (such as fixing identified defects) or the change GAO recommended.
GAO-12-878, Sep 16, 2012
Phone: (202)512-2717
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: On July 19, 2017, OPM officials provided a document that summarized efforts that are underway to address the recommendation. According to the document, proposed changes/recommendations to training elements and to the SF-182 were presented to the Chief Learning Officers Council at their monthly meeting on June 19, 2017. According to OPM, its ongoing connection with the CLO Council will include gathering information through focus groups in the Fall of 2017 on agencies' talent development processes, tools, and procedures. Questions on how an agency prioritizes training and tools used to do so will be included. OPM says it will use information gathered to develop criteria for ranking training. OPM provided a sample training summary it prepares for each agency. The summary contains a section on utilization of learning by source type and utilization of learning by delivery method. These sections also contain data that can be used when comparing the merits of different delivery mechanisms and determining future use. On June 11, 2020, OPM told us that program officials are gathering support for its implementation of the recommendation and would soon provide that information to GAO.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Comments: On July 19, 2017 OPM provided a document that summarized efforts that are underway to address the recommendation. According to the document, OPM provided a refresher to the Chief Learning Officers Council on OPM's guidance on Reporting of Training Data. This included reviewing OPM's and agencies' responsibilities for the collection and reporting of data and reviewing the process of how agency data is transmitted to EHRI. Further, OPM says it highlighted the Guide to Human Resources Reporting as the source for the required format for reporting training data to EHRI and provided the Guide for Collection and Management of Training Information. Both guides are also located on OPM's website. OPM's training data report summaries encourage agencies to review their data, to check for submission errors and consistencies in reporting, and to validate that all training events are included. OPM reported that 3 CHCO agencies that did not submit any data for FY 14 submitted data for FY 15 and that EHRI is assisting agencies with data quality transmission and PII issues. On June 11, 2020, OPM told us that program officials are gathering support for its implementation of the recommendation and would soon provide that information to GAO.
GAO-12-886, Sep 11, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019, Treasury staff said that steps continue to be taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. In June 2019, the Senate confirmed a new OFR Director. Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We will continue to monitor progress in implementing these steps.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research
Status: Open
Comments: In October 2019 Treasury staff said that steps are being taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway as staff from both entities meet on a weekly basis and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. The Senate confirmed a new OFR director in June 2019. In June 2017, Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We continue to monitor FSOC and OFR actions that would be responsive to clarifying responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability.
GAO-12-830R, Jul 26, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
Status: Open
Comments: During our audit of the American Battle Monuments Commission's (Commission) fiscal year 2011 financial statements, we found that the Commission had not performed independent physical inventory of equipment owned by the Commission at the various cemeteries across the world. We found that although the Commission had a policy to perform biennial physical inventory counts of all equipment over $500, this policy was not adhered to during fiscal year 2011. Further, the policy did not explain how to plan, execute, and analyze the results of an inventory count. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Commission instruct the appropriate officials to establish and implement written procedures for conducting all physical inventory counts of equipment. These procedures, at a minimum, should outline the processes for (1) planning and executing the physical inventory count and (2) analyzing and documenting the results. During our follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement procedures to address this recommendation but have not dedicated resources to it yet. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
Agency: American Battle Monuments Commission
Status: Open
Comments: During our audit of the American Battle Monuments Commission's (Commission) fiscal year 2011 financial statements, we found that the Commission had not performed independent physical inventory of equipment owned by the Commission at the various cemeteries across the world. We found that although the Commission had a policy to perform biennial physical inventory counts of all equipment over $500, this policy was not adhered to during fiscal year 2011. As a result, we recommended that the Secretary of the Commission direct the appropriate officials to establish a mechanism to monitor implementation of existing Commission policy to perform biennial physical inventory counts of all items of equipment with an obligated balance of $500 or more. During our fiscal year 2012 audit, we found that although the Commission had performed a comparison of the equipment on hand to the data recorded in SharePoint (document management web application to share documents internally), an independent physical inventory was not performed. We determined that the Commission had not established a mechanism for performing an inventory of assets. During our follow-up, the Commission informed us that they plan to implement procedures to address this recommendation but have not dedicated resources to it yet. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.
GAO-12-685, Jun 1, 2012
Phone: (202)512-6304
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: While the Department of Defense (DOD) had taken steps to improve its business enterprise architecture, it had not implemented the recommendation as of November 2019. In August 2013, the department established the Business Enterprise Architecture Configuration Control Board, which is chaired by the business enterprise architecture chief architect (Office of the DOD CMO) and includes representatives from the Defense Business Council member organizations. These organizations include, among others, DOD's CIO and the military department CMOs. According to its charter, the Business Enterprise Architecture Configuration Control Board is the principal body for managing the disposition of proposed architecture requirements and change requests. However, the charter does not discuss roles and responsibilities associated with the development of the business enterprise architecture. Specifically, it does not address alignment and coordination of business process areas or military department and defense agency activities associated with developing and implementing each of the various components of the business enterprise architecture, and the relationships among these entities. In addition, in September 2018, the department stated that it was drafting a business enterprise architecture concept of operations that was to outline roles and responsibilities associated with the development of the architecture. However, as of November 2019, the department had not completed the concept of operations or otherwise demonstrated that it had established roles and responsibilities for the development of the architecture. In October 2018, an official from the Office of the CMO described the department's new approach to developing its business enterprise architecture. In addition, the department demonstrated that it had developed a taxonomy for the architecture and was in the process of developing an ontology to help ensure that each of the respective portions of the architecture would be appropriately linked and aligned. In November 2019, the official stated that the ontology had been implemented in the department's new business enterprise architecture tool; however, the department did not demonstrate that it had finished developing the ontology. Specifically, the department's October 2019 ontology document identifies basic concepts, such as "Goal", "Objective", and "LOB" (i.e., line of business) as classes, and the properties and attributes of, and relationships among, classes. However, the document does not include annotations such as for the "description" attribute for an LOB, which would provide information needed to create a specific instance of a class applicability; and had not demonstrated that it had developed ontologies for its business domains, such as acquisition, human resource management, and financial management. Also, the document does not demonstrate if allowed values have been defined for some attributes, such as the options allowed in an "option list" for "status" attributes. Further, the department had not documented general information about the ontology, such as its scope and intended applicability; and had not demonstrated that it had developed ontologies for its business domains, such as acquisition, human resource management, and financial management.
GAO-12-482, May 3, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-5257
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In January 2019, according to DOD officials, the Navy was still revising its policies and guidance documents to include information on sharing UII data enterprise wide. They expected a revised Secretary of the Navy instruction to undergo review in Fiscal Year 2019 and an OPNAV supporting instruction to follow, once the Secretary of the Navy instruction is released. However, as of September 2019, the relevant Secretary of the Navy instruction had not been updated.
GAO-12-345, Mar 21, 2012
Phone: (404) 679-1816
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The department partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that while it supports the refinement and update of DOD Instruction 5100.73, it uses the major headquarters activity designation to identify and manage the size of organizations in order to comply with statutory limits on headquarters personnel, not as tool to manage the organizational efficiency of the department or its components. With regard to the element of the recommendation concerning contractors, the department stated that in November of 2011 it had submitted a plan to the congressional defense committees for its Inventory of Contracts for Services that establishes both near and long term actions to improve visibility over all contracted services. This plan, and subsequent guidance issued in December 2011, describes the steps being taken to account for the level of effort of contracted support, based on the activity requiring the service. With regard to the element of the recommendation to meet reporting requirements for major headquarters activities, the department stated it had incorporated this requirement into the Defense Manpower Requirements Report in fiscal year 2012 and 2013. However, as of March 2020, DOD has not completed actions to address three of the four parts of this recommendation. In September 2017, DOD completed a revised framework for major DOD headquarters activities tied to funding, but as of March 2020 has not yet updated DOD Instruction 5100.73 to reflect all major DOD headquarters activity organizations included in the revised framework. DOD has also not identified an approach to include contractor personnel as part of its headquarters reporting. For fiscal year 2020 reporting, DOD intends to rely on the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) as the basis for collecting information on contracted services. GAO has previously reported that FPDS-NG has certain limitations, including not being able to (a) identify and record more than one type of service purchased for each contracting action entered into the system, (b) identify the requiring activity specifically, and (c) determine the number of contractor full-time equivalents used to perform each service. Consequently, it is unclear the extent to which using FPDS-NG will enable DOD to determine the number of contractors and the functions they are performing in support of headquarters activities. DOD did clarify how it would respond to section 1109 of the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act to satisfy this part of the recommendation. Lastly, DOD has also not yet established time frames for updating DOD Instruction 5100.73 or for determining how contractor personnel are to be included in major DOD headquarters activity reporting.
GAO-12-333, Mar 9, 2012
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2019, CMS officials reported that the agency was still in the process of implementing this recommendation about developing guidance regarding liability and no-fault set-aside arrangements. Since April 2012, the month the recommendation was made, CMS officials have reported at various times that the agency was planning to issue either regulatory or sub-regulatory guidance on this topic. In March 2019, officials said that the agency now planned to issue regulatory guidance, and that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was expected to be posted in October 2019. We will continue to update the status of this recommendation as new information is available.
GAO-12-31, Dec 15, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
GAO-12-33, Oct 5, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: A bill was introduced on June 28, 2011, which would have amended electronic filing requirements for paid preparers. This included language amending section 6695 of the Internal Revenue Code to include a penalty of $50 for failure to electronically file returns under section 6011 (e)(3). However, this bill was never enacted. As of January 2020, there are no bills pending that would provide IRS with authority to penalize paid preparers for failure to electronically file returns as GAO recommended
GAO-11-696, Jul 21, 2011
Phone: (202)512-5837
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-11-587, 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-11-494R, Jun 21, 2011
Phone: (202)512-9521
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: IRS's actions to address this recommendation are ongoing. IRS officials stated that during fiscal year 2020, Facilities Management and Security Services (FMSS) will update the Internal Revenue Manual to reflect the necessary guidance for service center guards and FMSS physical security specialists to know (1) whom the guards are to contact to report lighting outages and (2) how lighting outages are to be documented and tracked until resolved.
GAO-11-381, Jun 17, 2011
Phone: (202)512-9338
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA, as of September 2019, had not resumed data verification audits to routinely evaluate the quality of the data states provide to the agency. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime and the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) will replace the data verification audits in the future. EPA has made SDWIS Prime available through incremental interim releases to state drinking water agencies for exploring and testing but does not expect to fully release it until mid-2020. However, as of August 2019, SDWIS Prime was unavailable while EPA awaited progress on the SDWIS Modernization Project plan. According to EPA, the CMDP will enable utilities and laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies with fewer errors and in a more efficient manner; but it is not clear when it will be fully operational. According to data provided by EPA in September 2019, 10 states were using CMDP to varying degrees. EPA information identified another 6 states that plan to transition to CMDP between September and December 2019, 2 states that plan to transition in 2020, and 12 others that may transition in the future. In the meantime, EPA indicated that the agency will complete nine file reviews in 2019 to verify data in agencies that do not currently use CMDP. EPA's actions may improve its ability to oversee states' implementation of the act and provide more complete and accurate information on compliance, but because EPA's systems to replace data verification audits are not yet fully in place, we are keeping this recommendation open.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA is developing the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, with several efforts underway as of September 2019 as we noted under recommendation 1, but until it is fully operational, EPA will not be able to work with states to establish a national goal for the quality of monitoring violations. EPA noted in 2017 that it expected SDWIS Prime to enable the agency and primacy agencies to better understand the nature of system violations and consider developing goals for monitoring and reporting violations. However, according to EPA, SDWIS Prime will not be released until mid-2020. EPA indicated plans to modify the Annual Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Review requirements but the agency states that it is dependent on approval by the Office of the Inspector General. Despite the ongoing delays to address the call in the recommendation for establishing new goals, we are keeping this recommendation open while EPA continues its efforts to implement SDWIS Prime.
GAO-11-219, Feb 28, 2011
Phone: (206)287-4860
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2017, DOD officials have not implemented this recommendation. GAO considers it to be open. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-11-111, Dec 16, 2010
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2019, IRS finalized a customer service strategy identifying an optimal telephone level of service. According to the strategy, IRS has a process to compare major metrics with other agencies and private industry, and conducted two studies to look at industry practices. In response to our recommendation, IRS compared its telephone data with similar telephone environments, and determined that a telephone level of service between 70 and 80 percent provides an optimal balance for servicing customer service telephones and paper correspondence requests. However, IRS faced two significant challenges in managing the 2019 filing season: (1) implementing major tax law changes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), and (2) a lapse in appropriations that left IRS unfunded during five weeks leading up to the opening of the 2019 filing season. As a result of issues stemming from these challenges, IRS revised its 2019 filing season telephone service goals from 80 percent to 65 percent during the filing season, and from 75 percent to 63 percent for all of fiscal year 2019. By not maintaining the identified optimal level of service standard, IRS is missing opportunities to illustrate gaps between actual and desired levels of service that may have resulted from issues linked to TCJA implementation and the lapse in appropriations. IRS did outline steps it is taking to achieve the optimal range of 70-80 percent telephone level of service outlined in its customer service strategy. Specifically, IRS said that it is working to upgrade equipment for all IRS business units that provide telephone services to taxpayers. It also cited examples of these upgrades, such as implementing a customer callback system that allows callers to keep their place in queue without remaining on the phone. While IRS said it has allocated funding to begin the development and installation of the customer callback feature, it did not provide an estimate of the resources required to upgrade the equipment and otherwise achieve the optimum range of telephone level of service. By not providing sufficient information to Congress on resources needed to achieve an optimal level of service, IRS is missing opportunities to justify the resources it believes are needed to improve taxpayer service.
GAO-11-171R, Dec 16, 2010
Phone: (202)512-8246
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented program-specific recommendations from the corrosion study for the other weapon systems identified in its report. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. These actions may improve the corrosion prevention and control planning for the weapon systems identified in DOD's study. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. According to Corrosion Office officials, they interacted with two of five weapon-systems programs on corrosion-related matters. One of these weapon-system programs, per Corrosion Office officials, was eventually canceled. In addition to updating the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and Equipment in 2014, officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). Also, according to Corrosion Office officials, procedures for evaluating acquisition programs will be included in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal of completing this instruction update and creating the new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented Air Force- and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. Further, the Air Force and the Navy have both taken actions to address the DOD-wide recommendations from the corrosion study. These actions may improve corrosion prevention and control planning for Air Force and Navy programs. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) or other appropriate guidance related to the process or procedures for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of Corrosion Prevention Control planning for weapon systems, particularly related to how the military services will accomplish this within their increased weapon system oversight role. In addition, per Corrosion Office officials, this information will be addressed in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
GAO-11-84, Dec 8, 2010
Phone: (202)512-8246
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has not updated DOD Instruction 5000.67 - Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan, or other applicable guidance since the publication of our report. DOD did not concur with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. Corrosion Office officials agree that Corrosion Executives' responsibilities in the Corrosion Prevention Project selection process have to be further defined. They plan to clearly document the selection procedures and participation of the Corrosion Executive in an update to DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) and in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal is to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.
GAO-10-349, Feb 10, 2010
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as we suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. In addition, Congress expanded math error authority for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit in November 2009. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what we suggested in February 2010, we maintain that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of January 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority. We continue to believe that Congress should broaden IRS's math error authority with appropriate safeguards in order to help reduce the tax gap, which is the difference between tax amounts that taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid .
GAO-10-56, Nov 19, 2009
Phone: (206)287-4860
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In its comments to this report, the Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. On October 2009, DOD's Force Health Protection and Response Office sent a memo to each of the military service Surgeons General emphasizing the need for the post-deployment health reassessment (PDHRA) to be offered to all service members who are eligible to complete the assessment. In 2010, DOD's noted that the services would work with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) repository to ensure PDHRAs are submitted correctly, without transmission errors. DOD's 2011 case records showed that the Air Force and Army had developed data verification processes to ensure that AFHSC received PDHRAs. Further, the Defense Medical Data Center (DMDC) had planed to create a file consisting of the date of deployment for deployed personnel, and that the file would be available to the services in order to match DMDC with data from each of the service-specific systems, in accordance to requirements. In September 2011, although DMDC and the services had agreed to match rosters of deployed service members, there were still inconsistencies in deployment dates. In March 2012, DOD was still verifying data inconsistencies which, until resolved, leads to inaccurate reporting based on errors in the deployment dates. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.
GAO-10-59, Nov 13, 2009
Phone: (202)512-2757
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: Commerce neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule (GAO-14-59), Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. Bureau officials announced they had completed the 2020 Census schedule in July 2016, and have since periodically described their intent to link resources to activities within their schedules. However, as of May 2018, when the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation. In July 2018 (GAO-18-589) we reported again on the status of the Bureau's scheduling, stating that when the Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the schedule more effectively as a management tool. The Bureau took steps toward assigning resources to its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps in developing its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.
GAO-10-102, Oct 28, 2009
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.
GAO-09-976, Sep 30, 2009
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2017, IRS provided documentation of plans to periodically share with appropriate staff business rules information, along with related results of periodic evaluations of the business rules for the four highest-volume collection notices. In February 2018, IRS officials said that conducting the evaluations will depend on resources being available from the multiple functions involved. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided GAO with documentation of time frames for regularly sharing business rules information. We will update the status when IRS provides supporting documentation on actions taken, as we requested in December 2019.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2017, IRS provided documentation of plans to periodically evaluate the business rules for the four highest-volume collection notices and share evaluation results with appropriate staff. In February 2018, IRS officials said that conducting the evaluations will depend on resources being available from the multiple functions involved. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided GAO with documentation of any evaluation results or a date when IRS expects to complete the first such evaluation. Nor had IRS provided time frames for regularly conducting and sharing business rules evaluation results. We will update the status when IRS provides supporting documentation on actions taken, as we requested in December 2019.
GAO-09-483, May 12, 2009
Phone: (202)512-5837
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 4, 2019, the revised Prime Broker letter has not been finalized. Staff from the Reg SHO team in SEC's Trading and Markets division stated that they have regularly and continuously asked the industry for comments on the Prime Broker Letter without receiving any real progress. Their most recent request for comments was emailed to industry counsel on May 22, 2019. Industry counsel acknowledged the request but have yet to provide comments.
GAO-09-133, Dec 12, 2008
Phone: (202)512-6408
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: Legislation has been enacted to provide funding for, among other things, the development of a nationwide, interoperable broadband network that is aimed at improving interoperable radio communications among public safety officials. However, the use of the broadband network by public safety users will be voluntary. In addition, officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury stated that, once mission-critical voice capabilities have been developed for the broadband network, their respective departments will determine whether they will use the network to support their mission-critical operations. Therefore, until the three departments have the information they need to make a decision to use the nationwide public safety broadband network to support mission critical voice capabilities, it is uncertain if the legislation will remedy these agencies' fragmented approaches to improving interoperable radio communications. As of March 2020, there has been no legislative action taken in the current Congress.
GAO-08-731, Jun 26, 2008
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, we continue to monitor the issue.
GAO-08-400, Mar 6, 2008
Phone: (202)512-8984
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not yet acted on this recommendation. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), signed into law in December 2015, is due to be reauthorized in fiscal year 2021.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not yet acted on this recommendation. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), signed into law in December 2015, did not address the current imbalance between federal surface transportation revenues and spending. The Act is due to be reauthorized in fiscal year 2021.
GAO-07-119, Dec 12, 2006
Phone: (202)512-9471
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: On May 24, 2017, the Department of Interior (DOI) sent out an email to its staff showing the dissemination of the new format required for completing trip reports by the staff of the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA). The new format requires staff to include travel justification (i.e., purpose/objective, location, and travel period) and trip report (i.e., meetings, site visits, results, and next steps, as applicable.) The intent of the recommendation is for DOI to have a framework that includes (1) status of required single audit reports; (2) the progress of actions to resolve reported internal control weaknesses; and (3) current needs for technical assistance, capacity building, and staff level expertise. Further, the intent of GAO's recommendation is that this information be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring process. We did not see these elements included in DOI's new format. At present, the agency has been unable to provide additional information that supports the development of a framework for conducting sites visits that incorporates procedures about how information will be shared and monitored. In August 2020, the agency informed us that it has taken additional corrective actions some time ago and is in the process of trying to locate the supporting documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-06-347, Apr 14, 2006
Phone: 2025166906
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concurred with this recommendation. Since the issuance of the GAO report, OMB has made several revisions to its OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix C "Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments." The latest revision is dated June 26, 2018. The intent of OMB Circular No. A-123, Appendix C, is to ensure that federal agencies focus on prevention and have the proper incentives to improve their improper payment rates. In August 2020, OMB provided us its improper payment guidance on sampling and estimation in place at the time of the GAO audit. Based on this documentation, we sent a follow-up request to OMB for additional information. We are currently waiting to hear back from OMB so we can continue with our review. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.
GAO-04-45, Oct 30, 2003
Phone: (202)512-8815
including 5 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of the completion of our fiscal year 2019 audit of the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS), this recommendation remained open. Treasury developed guidance and formed a working group along with State Department and other federal entity representatives in fiscal year 2019. The working group was established with the Chief Financial Officer Council (CFOC) for the purpose of developing a cost-effective solution to improve the accountability and ensure completeness in the reporting of treaties and other international agreements to address GAO's five long-standing open recommendations. We will follow-up on progress made by Treasury and OMB as part of our fiscal year 2020 CFS audit.