Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should include the known limitations and intended uses of its TAM performance data in its public reports such as its annual NTD summary and other reports for decision-makers. This action should include clarifying the context of state of good repair data in TAM reports in relation to similar data in DOT's Condition and Performance Report and how they differ. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The FTA Administrator should develop a plan for how FTA intends to analyze, implement, and communicate any identified TAM program improvements moving forward. The plan should describe how FTA intends to address:

• relying on a single performance measure per asset category,

• potential limited use of investment scenarios by transit agencies in making asset decisions, and

• shorter-term planning horizons than those used by other planning counterparts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should require the W80-4 program, when it issues its baseline cost report prior to entry into phase 6.4, to adopt a date for the delivery of a first production unit, and dates for other key program milestones, based on the program's current schedule risk analysis, or document its justification for adopting alternative schedules and milestones based on other factors. If necessary, the Administrator should alert the Secretary of Energy to the need to engage in the extension or notification processes identified in statute for adopting a first production unit delivery date after September 2025. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should revise the Program Execution Instruction or other related directives to require future LEPs and nuclear weapon modernization programs of similar complexity, when they issue a WDCR or baseline cost report, to establish program schedules and key milestone dates (including the FPU delivery date) on the basis of a formal schedule risk analysis that aligns with best practices, or document the justification for any decision to adopt alternative schedules and milestones based on other factors. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the progress the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and identified an action officer to lead implementation of this recommendation. DOD stated that it is developing a sampling plan with criteria to consider for assessing the consistent use of standard designs. DOD stated that it would identify projects that were completed during the year that used standard designs and that it would then assess the progress that the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently by sampling from the completed projects. DOD stated that, based on the results of this analysis, it would adjust the metrics and frequency of future analyses, as appropriate. DOD stated that it expects this effort to be completed in Spring 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the effects of the use of standard designs, specifically the progress the Centers are making in reducing design costs and time, construction costs and time, and change orders. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and stated that it planned to establish relevant performance measures to analyze efforts to reduce design costs and time, construction costs and time, and the number of change orders. DOD stated that it expects to develop standards containing the metrics, frequency of analysis, and means of reporting. DOD stated that it expects to present the results of its analysis at the FY2020 Military Programs After Action Review in January 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment develop and implement a plan to guide and coordinate efforts to implement the Wideband AOA recommendations to support timely, informed decisions on its next wideband satellite communications architecture. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of July 2020 is still working to implement its corrective action plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Undersecretary for Management develops an oversight process to confirm that programs' schedule goals are developed and updated in accordance with GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide, to include ensuring traceability between APB schedule goals and IMSs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Management Directorate's Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) developed a checklist based on GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide, among other things, to evaluate programs' IMSs. PARM also plans to develop guidance on schedules which is intended to assist the Component Acquisition Executives (CAE) and acquisition program staff responsible for building IMSs and APBs. In July 2020, PARM officials reported that the schedule checklist was already being used to evaluate and ensure program IMSs adhered to GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. In addition, PARM officials are updating and drafting guidance on schedules to assist CAEs and program staff when building IMSs and APBs. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of executing these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Undersecretary for Management revises the schedule development guidance in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guidebook to state clearly that an IMS should be used as the basis for APB schedule goals. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that Management Directorate's Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) was in the process of revising the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guidebook and would clarify the language relating to IMSs to ensure guidance is consistent. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of revising the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guidebook.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to define and determine a schedule for synchronization reviews, including the role of the proposed Lunar Exploration Control Board, to help ensure that requirements between mission and program levels are reconciled. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Advanced Exploration Systems division will review program life-cycle review plans to ensure enterprise and program requirements are reconciled across the mission. NASA is in the process of determining the organizational structure of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. Following this completion, NASA officials stated that the appropriate control board and division structures for review and program direction will become active.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level at the program level for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated it would conduct a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent. The Gateway program is planning to conduct a series of project- and program-level reviews and assessments aligned with key decision point reviews. This includes conducting a joint cost and schedule confidence level analysis or equivalent of the Gateway initial configuration to support a program key decision point planned for fall 2021. NASA has not yet taken action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Gateway program to update its overall schedule for 2024 to add a KDP II to occur before system integration. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken action on it. NASA stated that it would provide a schedule for future reviews, including whether there will be a Key Decision Point (KDP) II, at the KDP-I review currently scheduled for fall 2021.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations creates a life-cycle cost estimate for the Artemis III mission. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: NASA agreed with the recommendation and stated that the agency will provide a preliminary cost estimate for the Artemis III mission by the end of 2020. Further, NASA stated that it will provide an updated cost estimate for the Artemis III mission after it establishes cost and schedule commitments for some of the projects that compose the lunar mission, currently planned for the Spring of 2021. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide a cost estimate.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations directs the Advanced Exploration Systems division to commit to a completion date and finalize a cohesive document outlining the rationale for selecting its current lunar architecture and lunar programs. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is developing a document that will summarize the trades and architectural studies, but the document is not yet complete.

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should ensure that the Office of the Chief Engineer determines under what conditions it is appropriate to complete an analysis of alternatives, particularly when there are multiple pathways—including architectures or programs—that NASA could pursue in the future, and document the justification for not completing an analysis. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any action on it. NASA stated that it will provide additional clarifying guidance for conducting analyses of alternatives for new programs in the next update to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements." NASA plans to complete the update of the procedural requirement in September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the fiscal year 2019 plan includes the statutorily required elements or discloses why any element was not included in the plan. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS agreed with our recommendation and in August 2020, DHS issued the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Border Security Improvement Plan. The plan includes a description and the status for satisfying of each of the 11 statutorily required elements. GAO has on-going work to review the plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct NAVSEA to incorporate current cost and program data and an updated cost risk analysis in its planned update of the Columbia class lead submarine cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, stating that the Columbia Class Program cost estimate will be updated in 2019 to support the lead ship authorization Decision Acquisition Board in 2020. As of September 2020, we have yet to receive an update on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct NAVSEA to develop a realistic and well-documented estimate of savings from use of the authorities associated with the Fund and incorporate the savings associated with the lead submarine into the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation, stating that the updated Columbia Class Program cost estimate would incorporate estimated savings from use of the authorities associated with the fund and savings associated with the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. In August 2020, Navy officials indicated that NAVSEA updated the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate to include updates to the estimate of savings from the use of the authorities associated with the Fund.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Columbia class program office to update the lead submarine cost estimate and cost risk analysis prior to requesting funds for lead submarine construction. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, stating that the lead submarine cost estimate and cost risk analysis will be updated to support the lead ship authorization Decision Acquisition Board in 2020. In August 2020, Navy officials indicated that NAVSEA updated the Columbia lead submarine cost estimate. However, this estimate was completed after funding was requested for lead submarine construction. While the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation plans to conduct an assessment of this estimate in the summer of 2020, the assessment will also be too late to inform the Navy's funding request.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy categorize and report the Navy's software sustainment costs, in accordance with DOD policy on the Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process. [Recommendation 1]

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

Comments: The PAO reported that OSD has established a cross-Service team to develop a framework for accounting and reporting core requirements and capabilities specific to weapon system software that recognizes Service-unique attributes, and is applicable across all of DoD. When developed, the framework will clarify how to identify software sustainment costs, and data sources in accordance with DOD policy. When we confirm what additional actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation complete its evaluation and select the most effective system to obtain cost and software data from DOD software centers, and develop an implementation plan that includes time frames for key milestones to execute and monitor the centers' submission of required data. [Recommendation 2]

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: PAO reported contacting the office of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and provided a template for reporting progress implementing recommendations 2 and 4 with a suspense of 31 July 2020. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation takes steps to prioritize the respective military departments' obtaining and reporting of complete operating and support costs for software sustainment through its Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs systems. [Recommendation 3]

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: PAO reported contacting the office of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and provided a template for reporting progress implementing this recommendation with a suspense of 31 July 2020. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to develop a program-wide strategy that outlines how DOE will direct available resources to address human health and environmental risks across and within sites. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of February 2020, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has not developed a program-wide strategy that addresses this recommendation. DOE officials said they are "developing a strategic options analysis to evaluate the current approaches to cleanup and other recently identified opportunities across the complex that could reduce risk and life-cycle costs through more efficient and innovative approaches." According to DOE officials, the analysis will consider risk-based approaches across sites, with the goal of reducing human health and environmental risks and the associated environmental liability.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to submit in EM's annually required Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan all mandated requirements, as well as information on annual growth in environmental liability estimates by site, the key factors causing that growth, and an explanation of significant differences between environmental liability estimates and life cycle cost estimates. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has not implemented this recommendation. DOE officials stated that DOE will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget on the preparation of the Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan, or other reporting, to supplement Congressional Budget documentation. Officials also stated that EM is currently undertaking an analysis of EM's environmental liability growth.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to disclose the funding EM needs to meet all of its schedule milestones called for in compliance agreements in, for example, supplemental reports or the annual Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has not implemented this recommendation. DOE officials stated that DOE will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget to include such information in the Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan, or another appropriate report.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP should analyze the costs associated with future barrier segments and include cost as a factor in the Impedance and Denial Prioritization Strategy. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2018, we reported on U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) efforts to construct new physical barriers along the southwest border. We found that the Impedance and Denial Prioritization Strategy--CBP's decision support tool for prioritizing locations for barrier construction projects--did not include analysis of the costs of deploying barriers in each location, which can vary depending on topography, land ownership, and other factors. We recommended that CBP analyze the costs associated with future barrier segments and include cost as a factor in the Impedance and Denial Prioritization Strategy. CBP agreed with this recommendation. CBP officials stated that, after prioritizing locations, CBP conducts detailed cost estimates as part of the acquisitions process. As of January 2020, CBP officials stated that this cost information may affect how the construction projects are executed, but that it would not influence how CBP prioritizes barrier construction projects across various locations. As we have previously reported, organizations should use an integrated approach to the requirements, acquisitions, and budget processes to prioritize needs and allocate resources, so they can optimize return on investment, and maintain program affordability. To fully address our recommendation, Border Patrol needs to incorporate its analysis of the costs of barrier projects into its process for prioritizing locations for construction of barriers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Management should require the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management to assess the results of major acquisition programs' post-implementation reviews and identify opportunities to improve performance across the acquisition portfolio. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to update its policy to require more formal reporting requirements and execution criteria for post-implementation reviews. PARM also plans to initiate a study focused on assessing lessons learned and developing a tool to share them across components to improve performance of the acquisition portfolio. In February 2020, PARM approved guidance intended to standardize analysis elements for post-implementation reviews. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of developing a tool to share results across components, but in the interim, results from some post-implementation reviews have been shared during meetings with Component Acquisition Executives. GAO will review post-implementation reviews conducted under the new guidance and will monitor DHS's implementation of the tool to ensure the department's actions meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should work with Congress to include O&S data in monthly execution reports at a major acquisition program level within current program/project activity accounts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS agreed with this recommendation and has indicated the OCFO budget division will develop a display that provides major acquisition program level data at the program project activity level by March 30, 2019. As of March 2020, DHS has developed these displays and is working to populate them with all components' data.

Recommendation: Early in the next decennial cycle, the Secretary of Commerce should direct the Under Secretary of the Economics and Statistics Administration and the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to plan and execute more flexible, and perhaps smaller, address canvassing test and evaluation activity needed to support key design decisions having significant effect on the cost and quality of the census.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, the Bureau had not yet begun its 2030 testing and evaluation planning. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To increase the likelihood that its IT investments develop reliable cost estimates, the Secretary of HUD should finalize, and ensure the implementation of, guidance that incorporates the best practices called for in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2017, HUD reported that the department concurred with the recommendation and noted that the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) intended to establish cost estimation guidance for IT projects within its IT Management Framework Guide, incorporating appropriate best practices from the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. In March 2019, HUD reported that, with contractor assistance, the department had begun to develop a standard methodology for investment lifecycle cost estimation; however, the methodology had not been fully institutionalized across all investments, and a policy for cost estimation had not been developed. Lacking an updated IT Management Framework and cost estimation policy, OCIO took additional interim action in the most recent budget cycle to reduce cost estimation risk by having the Chief Technology Officer standardize the cost estimates for IT investments. HUD continues to take action intended to address this recommendation; however, OCIO has not yet finalized a cost estimation methodology or the associated policy for IT investments or established a timeframe for implementing cost estimation practices departmentwide.

Recommendation: To ensure Bureau and congressional confidence that the Bureau's budgeted contingencies are at appropriate levels, the Secretary of Commerce and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs should direct the Census Bureau to improve control over how risk and uncertainty are accounted for and communicated with the Bureau's decennial cost estimation process, such as by implementing and institutionalizing processes or methods for doing so with clear guidance.

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.

Recommendation: To help ensure the Bureau focuses its resources on those activities that show promise for substantially reducing enumeration cost, in advance of the 2016 Census Test and later tests, the Secretary of Commerce should direct the Under Secretary of the Economics and Statistics Administration and the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to, ensure systematic capture of information about fieldwork cases that experience problems by including information in enumerator training about where to record the issues, who to contact, what details to include, and the importance of doing so.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce concurred with this recommendation. The Census Bureau informed us in December 2015 that no later than the end of December 2015, it would document how these matters have been addressed in the enumerator training (or in help screens on their mobile device) planned for the 2016 Census Test, and that it would use results and observations from that test to further refine such information for future tests and for the 2020 Census. The Bureau provided us with related training materials for the 2016 Test, yet we made similar observations during the 2016 test and the 2018 End-to-End test. For the Bureau to be informed on any additional training needs or other operational decisions for 2020, it will need to continue to expand its efforts in collecting information on enumerator-reported problems per our 2015 recommendation. In April 2020, Bureau officials said that it was not likely they would be able to incorporate additional changes for the 2020 Census field operations. With the Bureau's more recent April announcement to further delay field operations due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we are continuing to ask the Bureau if there is opportunity to address this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to identify what information it finds valuable to have from its enumerators, such as the incidence of specific technical problems with the survey instrument or mobile device and ensure that enumerators and their first-line supervisors are made aware of the importance of recording such information and how to do so.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the Navy has adequate oversight of on-order excess inventory termination decisions and necessary performance measures consistent with DOD guidance, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command, to incorporate the graduated management reviews and the ability to track and review the reasons for not canceling and modifying on-order excess items into its automated termination module that is under development.

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to require MAIS programs to establish their first acquisition program baseline within 2 years of beginning work on the programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD had made limited progress addressing our recommendation for business system programs; however, it had not addressed the recommendation for non-business system programs. Specifically, the department updated its instruction on business systems requirements and acquisition to include, among other things, guidance on establishing baselines against which to measure progress for developing needed business capability. However, the instruction did not explicitly require that a program baseline be established within 2 years. Specifically, according to the instruction, baselines may be established at the program level or at the release level (i.e., for a manageable subset of functionality in support of the business capability), within 2 years after programs have validated a business capability is needed and received approval to conduct solution analysis. If at the program level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of the first release or deployment. If at the release level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of each release or deployment. In January 2020, the department also issued interim policy for software-intensive systems. However, while the interim policy requires program managers to develop an acquisition strategy that includes delivering software within one year from the date funds are first obligated to acquire or develop new software capability, the interim policy does not require software-intensive system programs to establish a program baseline within 2 years.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to conduct the following assessments and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans: (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest information on DHS headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading capital planning practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to conduct the following assessments and use the results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans: (1) a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities that take into consideration changing conditions, and (2) an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account for funding instability.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150), enacted on April 29, 2016, mirrors GAO recommendations in this area. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region, and an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. We will review the latest information on DHS's headquarters consolidation efforts when it is provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of these recommendations at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading practices for capital planning and cost and schedule estimation is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, after revising the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: In order to improve transparency and allow for more informed decision making by congressional leaders and DHS and GSA decision-makers, before requesting additional funding for the DHS headquarters consolidation project, after revising the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Administrator of the General Services Administration should work jointly to develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule estimation, including an independent evaluation of the estimates.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of April 2020, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes updated cost and schedule estimates for the consolidation project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. GAO will review the latest DHS headquarters consolidation cost and schedule estimates when they are provided to Congress, and will assess the materials in the context of this recommendation at that time. Continued DHS and GSA attention to following leading cost and schedule estimation practices is critical given the project's multi-billion dollar cost and impact on future departmental operations.

Recommendation: Congress should consider making future funding for the St. Elizabeths project contingent upon DHS and GSA developing a revised headquarters consolidation plan, for the remainder of the project, that conforms with leading practices and that (1) recognizes changes in workplace standards, (2) identifies which components are to be colocated at St. Elizabeths and in leased and owned space throughout the National Capital Region, and (3) develops and provides reliable cost and schedule estimates.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than 120 days of enactment. As of March 2019, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information includes: a comprehensive assessment of property and facilities utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region; an analysis that identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project; and updated cost and schedule estimates for the project that are consistent with GAO's recommendations in GAO-14-648. Furthermore, the act requires the Comptroller General to evaluate the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their submittal to Congress. DHS reported that DHS and GSA prepared a comprehensive response to P.L. No. 114-150, but that the consolidation plan and response needed to be revised based on changing budget circumstances, among other things. In April 2020, DHS estimated that the final consolidation plan will be completed and approved in 2020. A comprehensive report to Congress on DHS headquarters consolidation, along with reliable project cost and schedule estimates, could inform Congress's funding decisions.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program planning and affordability, and to decrease the risk of cost and schedule overruns, NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to take the following action: To allow for a continued assessment of progress and affordability, NASA should structure each future increment of SLS capability with a total cost exceeding the $250 million threshold for designation as a major project as a separate development effort within the SLS program. In doing so, NASA should require each increment to complete both the technical and programmatic reviews required of other major development projects, per the agency's acquisition and system engineering policies.

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

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. In January 2020, NASA stated that it planned to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To fully implement this recommendation, however, NASA needs to provide evidence that each capability upgrade is designated a major project and is required to complete the technical and programmatic reviews required of other major development projects.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program planning and affordability, and to decrease the risk of cost and schedule overruns, NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to take the following action: Provide decision makers with an informed basis for making investment decisions regarding the SLS program, NASA should identify a range of possible missions for each future SLS variant that includes cost and schedule estimates and plans for how those possible missions would fit within NASA's funding profile.

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

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. In January 2020, NASA stated that new leadership at the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is conducting an internal independent assessment to assess the current schedule and technical approach for achieving a lunar landing by 2024, including the utilization of SLS for Artemis missions. With the insights gained from this assessment, NASA will move forward with planning and executing these missions through the annual budgeting process. To fully address this recommendation, NASA will need to identify cost and schedule estimates for possible SLS missions beyond its first exploration mission, now known as Artemis I, and how its planned missions would fit within NASA's funding profile.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish a separate cost and schedule baseline for work required to support the SLS Block I Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) and report this information to the Congress through NASA's annual budget submission. If NASA decides to fly the SLS Block I beyond EM-2, establish separate life cycle cost and schedule baseline estimates for those efforts, to include funding for operations and sustainment, and report this information annually to Congress via the agency's budget submission.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it defined and documented life-cycle costs for SLS to a first demonstrated capability, consistent with cost estimating best practices and NASA project and program management policy and that it would report costs associated with the second exploration mission via its annual budget submission. In January 2020, NASA stated that it is evaluating changes to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements," to better enable the necessary insight into program affordability and efficient monitoring of total program costs and execution for multi-year, multi-cadence type programs. Further, NASA stated that it is investigating plans to redefine performance expectations for multi-decade programs' formal commitments while maintaining visibility to the entire plan. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for work required to support SLS for EM-2, which is now known as Artemis II.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, because NASA intends to use the increased capabilities of the SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations efforts well into the future and has chosen to estimate costs associated with achieving the capabilities, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional capability that encompass all life cycle costs, to include operations and sustainment. When NASA cannot fully specify costs due to lack of well-defined missions or flight manifests, forecast a cost estimate range -- including life cycle costs -- having minimum and maximum boundaries. These baselines or ranges should be reported to Congress annually via the agency's budget submission.

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

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it had established separate programs for SLS, Orion, and the ground systems and adopted a block upgrade approach for SLS. In January 2020, NASA stated that it plans to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to provide evidence that it established separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations capability blocks that encompass all life-cycle costs, including operations and sustainment.

Recommendation: To improve the acquisition management of the Plan and the reliability of its cost estimates and schedules, assess the effectiveness of deployed technologies, and better inform CBP's deployment decisions, once data on asset assists are required to be recorded and tracked, the Commissioner of CBP should analyze available data on apprehensions and seizures and technological assists, in combination with other relevant performance metrics or indicators, as appropriate, to determine the contribution of surveillance technologies to CBP's border security efforts.

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.

Recommendation: To improve decision makers' abilities to make fully informed decisions concerning whether training requirements can be met with live and simulation-based training and determine optimal mixes of live and simulation-based training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop outcome-oriented performance metrics that can be used to assess the impact of simulation-based training on improving the performance or proficiency of servicemembers and units.

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."

Recommendation: To improve decision makers' abilities to make fully informed decisions concerning whether training requirements can be met with live and simulation-based training and determine optimal mixes of live and simulation-based training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop a methodology--to include identifying the costs that should be included and how these costs should be captured--for comparing the costs associated with the use of live and simulation-based 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."

Recommendation: In order to strengthen investment decisions, place the chosen investments on a sound acquisition footing, provide a better means of tracking investment progress, and improve the management and transparency of the U.S. missile defense approach in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should direct MDA's new Director to include in its resource baseline cost estimates all life cycle costs, specifically the operations and support costs, from the military services in order to provide decision makers with the full costs of ballistic missile defense systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our 2013 recommendation that decisionmakers should have insight into the full lifecycle costs of MDA's weapon systems outlined in the Ballistic Missile Defense System Accountability Report (BAR), including the military services' operations and sustainment (O&S) costs. This is especially important, as after more than a decade MDA has yet to transfer weapon systems in production and sustainment to the military services, as originally intended. Consequently, MDA is becoming responsible for an increasing amount of the costs associated with these weapon systems. DOD and Congress have expressed concerns over this situation and are exploring a path forward; however, in the mean time, determining the O&S costs can help decisionmakers fully understand the financial responsibility for these weapon systems, be it with the military services or MDA. MDA cited beginning to report aspects of this information in the BAR and also establishing joint cost estimates (JCE) for O&S with the military services for some weapon systems, both of which could potentially serve as a means of providing decisionmakers with insight into the full lifecycle costs. We have an ongoing assessment that will evaluate both of MDA's cited efforts and the extent to which these are providing decisionmakers with a comprehensive understanding of the depth and breadth of each weapon system's full lifecycle costs.

Recommendation: In order to strengthen investment decisions, place the chosen investments on a sound acquisition footing, provide a better means of tracking investment progress, and improve the management and transparency of the U.S. missile defense approach in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should direct MDA's new Director to stabilize the acquisition baselines, so that meaningful comparisons can be made over time that support oversight of those acquisitions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our 2013 recommendation regarding the need for MDA to stabilize its acquisition baselines, but also noted MDA's need to adjust its baselines to remain responsive to evolving requirements and threats; both of which are beyond MDA's control. Further, DOD highlighted the MDA Director's authority to make adjustments to the agency's programmatic baselines, within departmental guidelines. Our recommendation, however, is not designed to limit the Director's authority to adjust baselines or to prevent adjusting the baselines, as appropriate. Rather, our recommendation is designed to address traceability issues we have found with MDA's baselines, which are within its control. Specifically, for MDA to be able to effectively report longer-term progress of its acquisitions and provide the necessary transparency to Congress, it is critical that the agency stabilize its baselines so that once set, any revisions can be tracked over time. We have an ongoing assessment to update MDA's progress.

Recommendation: To ensure that major steady state IT investments are being adequately analyzed, the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Treasury should direct appropriate officials to develop an OA policy, annually perform OAs on all investments, and ensure the assessments include all key factors.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: For fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs provided its operational analyses to GAO for its major information technology investments. These operational analyses addressed a majority of the key factors identified in Office of Management and Budget guidance. Nevertheless, in February 2019, the department was still in the process of finalizing its operational analysis policy and identified a target completion date of September 2019 for when the policy would be complete and ready for publication.