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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment collaborates with the military departments and the Defense Logistics Agency to collect consistent information on the time to complete key steps in the pre-award contracting process for privatizing utility services. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Deputy Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In July 2020, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment noted that the Secretary of Defense has drafted an updated policy to direct military departments, their contract agencies, and Defense Logistics Agency-Energy to collect pre-award contract data and utilize DOD's Utilities Privatization Working Group to discuss and share data. According to DOD officials, the Department will finalize the policy by December 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment collaborates with the military departments and the Defense Logistics Agency to develop a mechanism to store and archive lessons learned regarding the pre-award contracting process for privatizing utility services. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Deputy Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In July 2020, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment noted that the Secretary of Defense will collaborate with the military departments, to include the Defense Logistics Agency-Energy, to select and utilize an existing federal government information technology platform to collect, analyze, archive, and share key data, lessons learned, and best practices pertaining to pre-award contracting processes and oversight of utilities privatization contracts. The Department will select a platform by December 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, provide updated guidance for the oversight of privatized military housing, to include oversight objectives for each service to monitor the physical condition of privatized homes over the remaining duration of the ground leases. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should take steps, in collaboration with the Army's private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 2

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should take steps, in collaboration with the Air Force's private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps, in collaboration with the Navy and Marine Corps' private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments and private housing partners, establish minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for work order data collection for comparability across installations and projects and to track trends over time. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment require the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by the private housing partners 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. (Recommendation 6)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, develop a process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data from the military departments to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way. (Recommendation 7)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment provides additional explanation of the data collected and reported in future reports to Congress, such as explaining the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data, among other things. (Recommendation 8)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should develop and implement a plan to clearly and systematically communicate to residents the difference between the military housing office and the private partner. At a minimum, these plans should include the Army housing office's roles, responsibilities, locations, and contact information and should ensure that all residents are aware that they can directly contact Army housing office officials. (Recommendation 9)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop and implement a plan to clearly and systematically communicate to residents the difference between the military housing office and the private partner. At a minimum, these plans should include the Navy housing office's roles, responsibilities, locations, and contact information and should ensure that all residents are aware that they can directly contact Navy housing office officials. (Recommendation 11)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, assess the risks of proposed initiatives aimed at improving the privatized military housing program on the financial viability of the projects. (Recommendation 12)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of CAPE, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, and the Joint Staff Deputy Director for Strategic Stability, as co-chairs of the Nuclear Deterrent Senior Oversight Group, update the applicable guidance for methods of tracking and evaluating progress on implementation of the recommendations from the 2014 nuclear enterprise reviews, requiring DOD components to keep information—including any revised time frames—current. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Nuclear Deterrent Senior Oversight Group co-chairs or, as necessary, the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the chair of Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise Review Group (NDERG), will update the applicable guidance to ensure that time frames and other information associated with planned actions are kept up to date. In April 2020, the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters issued a memo requesting updates to information that is included in the 2014 tracker by June 1, 2020; however, no additional guidance requiring continuing updates beyond June 1 has been issued as of September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment updates the applicable guidance for methods of tracking and evaluating progress on implementation of the recommendations of the 2015 NC3 report, requiring DOD components to keep information—including metrics for measuring progress and outcomes as well as any revised time frames that may extend out more than 1 year—complete and current. 49 (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer and, as appropriate, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment as the NC3 capability portfolio manager, will update the applicable guidance to ensure that metrics, time frames, and other information associated with planned actions are kept up to date and complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, determine whether it can assign the required number of Navy officers to the other military departments' JPME programs, consistent with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff guidance. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the military services, develop policy concerning actions, if any, the military services can take to mitigate JPME seminar student mix shortfalls and still meet the intent of the OPMEP's joint acculturation requirement. (Recommendation 2)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue a department-wide mission statement for PME that will explain the program's purpose and goals, and serve as a basis for performance measures. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue and implement performance measures—to include the tracking of costs—that align with the department-wide mission statement for PME. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, require the military services to periodically report information to its office about the military services' PME and JPME programs—such as results of program reviews. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense(Comptroller) updates the DOD Financial Management Regulation to require the Marine Corps to include a budget request data exhibit for the Marine Corps War College in support of DOD's annual budget request. (Recommendation 6)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue guidance to standardize the cost data that the military services should include in their annual PME budget request data submissions. (Recommendation 7)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief Management Officer identify and document specific implementation steps to advance a collaborative culture, consistent with our leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its concurrence, DOD stated that it intended to identify and document specific implementation steps to advance a collaborative culture through, among other things, the Chief Management Officer's forthcoming detailed implementing guidance on Secretary of Defense-empowered cross-functional teams and revisions to the DOD issuance regarding senior governance forums that are intended to advance a collaborative culture. As of July 2020, these efforts were still in progress, according to an OCMO official. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service provides customers with more complete information on the agency's rate-setting methodologies in rate documentation, briefings, and other forums where rates are discussed, including the costs included in rates, how those costs are calculated, and how changes in DFAS's workload affect customers' overall costs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) provides detailed cost and rate information to customers each year in multiple venues and would reach out to customers to obtain additional details to understand how to fill the information gap regarding rate transparency. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DFAS's corrective action plan, which stated that DFAS Client Executives would ask the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps lead Financial Managers for feedback on additional details needed to better plan for the DFAS bill. DFAS would then incorporate this additional detail into the customer bill briefings for the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2022. DFAS also stated that the Air Force had indicated that DFAS provides appropriate transparency, but had requested that DFAS provide its bill estimate earlier, which DFAS had agreed to do.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency provides customers with more complete information on the agency's rate-setting methodologies in rate documentation, briefings, and other forums where rates are discussed, including the costs included in rates, how those costs are calculated, and how changes in DISA's workload affect customers' overall costs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Information Systems Agency
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) will make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure the correct people have a full understanding of DISA's methodologies used to develop their rates. In April 2020, DOD provided to GAO DISA's corrective action plan, which stated that DISA would continue to make every effort to improve dialogue with customers to ensure an increased understanding of methodologies used to develop the rates. In this plan, DISA reported that, in February and March 2020, its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) coordinated with the communications and financial management senior leadership for the military services to discuss Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) rate methodology and transparency. In May 2020, DOD provided an updated status on this recommendation, stating that a result of the DISA CFO outreach was that DISA would use the regular and recurring DISA Drumbeat engagements with the military departments to present and maintain an open and transparent dialogue on DISA DWCF rates. GAO requested documentation for the recent Navy and Air Force Drumbeat meetings and the pending Army meeting, as well as recent rate briefings that document that DISA is providing this more complete rate-setting information to its customers. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency provides customers with more complete information on the agency's rate-setting methodologies in rate documentation, briefings, and other forums where rates are discussed, including the costs included in its rates, how it calculates those costs, and how and when proposed changes to its rate-setting methodologies will affect customers' overall costs. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) would include more detailed information in its annual rate briefing to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the services regarding what is in its costs, how it calculates costs, and how and when changes would impact customers' overall costs. In addition, DLA stated that it conducts semiannual Cost Summits and periodic DLA/Service Days with customers. DLA said it would include discussions, as appropriate, of topics such as potential pricing methodology changes and estimated cost impacts to customers, well in advance of implementation. In March 2020, DLA notified GAO that it had discussed cost rates with the military services during the January 2020 DLA Cost Summit and the Service Days with each of the military services that it held in June and November 2019. GAO requested documentation for these five meetings that includes the more complete information on DLA's rate-setting methodologies that GAO identified in the recommendation. GAO will update the status of this recommendation once this documentation is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA clarify internal guidance for daily account reviews by specifying criteria for the level (such as percentage or dollar amount) of change in transportation account balances that would require DSCA to contact DFAS for further examination. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to establish a percentage threshold for monitoring daily account balance changes. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA establish a methodology to calculate a target range, with desired upper and lower bounds, for FMS transportation account balances that could be used to better inform DSCA's account reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to create internal guidance for calculating upper and lower bounds and to monitor the accounts against them. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA modify the internal guidance for the annual review process to include the specific steps DSCA officials should take in preparing the annual report, including ensuring that they incorporate rigorous analysis into the annual reports. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to update internal guidance with specific criteria for measuring the health of the accounts and to perform rigorous analysis of historical account data as part of its annual review process. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA develop internal guidance related to the redistribution of funds between the FMS trust fund fee accounts. Such internal guidance could include criteria for when to consider redistributing funds between accounts and for when to return those funds, how to analyze the amount of any redistributions needed, and how to clearly report any redistributions to DSCA management. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to update internal guidance with specific criteria and analysis steps to follow when making determinations about redistributing funds between the FMS trust fund fee accounts. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA assess whether funds redistributed from the administrative account to the transportation account should be moved back to the FMS administrative account and document this decision. If the Director of DSCA determines that the funds should be moved back to the FMS administrative account, the Director should ensure the movement of funds in accordance with this decision. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and explained certain steps DSCA has already taken in response. In particular, DSCA has completed an assessment of the health of the main FMS transportation account sufficient to determine that it plans to move the redistributed funds back to the FMS administrative account and DSCA has taken initial steps to move those funds. We will continue to monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA develop internal guidance for the steps that DSCA, in combination with DFAS, should undertake when a Building Partner Capacity-specific transportation account closes to help ensure that any remaining unused funds are transferred to the miscellaneous receipts of the U.S. Treasury in accordance with DOD officials' stated intention to do so. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to develop guidance for DFAS to follow when Building Partner Capacity-specific transportation accounts close to ensure any remaining funds are transferred to the miscellaneous receipts of the U.S. Treasury. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA create specific internal guidance for how and from where data should be obtained to be used for its transportation fee rate reviews and the timeframes the data should cover to ensure DSCA has a systematic sample upon which to base its rate setting decisions. This updated internal guidance should be based on consultations with the military departments, DFAS, and U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) on which sources of transportation cost and fee data are the most reliable and comparable for use in its FMS transportation fee rate reviews. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and stated that DSCA has discussed with other relevant DOD agencies in a Transportation Working Group how to best address it. In particular, DSCA noted this Working Group has decided that all data for the rate reviews should come from common data systems and be submitted in a uniform manner. Upon determination of the systems to use and processes to follow, DSCA plans to update internal guidance accordingly. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA develop specific internal guidance to follow when performing transportation fee rate reviews. Such internal guidance could specify when these reviews should occur; a process to obtain management commitment to complete a review before DSCA requests that the military departments compile data for it; and a process for performing the reviews that includes developing clear, documented goals and an appropriate level of analysis to best ensure that DSCA's analysis meets those goals. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to update internal guidance for FMS transportation fee rate reviews to ensure they are completed every 5 years. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this aspect of the recommendation, as well as the other aspects related to DSCA providing greater specificity about the processes for obtaining management commitment and for performing the rate reviews.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA conduct a review of the current structure of the FMS transportation fee rate, in consultation with other relevant DOD agencies, to determine if other rate structures could better balance considerations related to administrative burden, equity, efficiency, and revenue adequacy. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to perform rigorous analysis and to consult with other relevant DOD agencies in the Transportation Working Group about whether the current structure of the FMS transportation fee rate is still valid or should be updated, and to update internal guidance as appropriate. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA clarify internal guidance for the military departments on how to calculate the estimated actual transportation prices to charge FMS purchasers for certain items, such as by specifying a calculation methodology. This updated internal guidance should be based on consultations with the military departments, TRANSCOM, and any other relevant DOD components on which sources of data and which calculation methodologies would be most accurate. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In DSCA's letter responding to this report, DSCA concurred with this recommendation and identified plans to address it, such as to consult with other relevant DOD agencies in the Transportation Working Group to review this calculation methodology, determine a revised methodology that better aligns with TRANSCOM's transportation routes and contracting costs, and to update internal guidance as appropriate. We will monitor DSCA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment designates an accountable official responsible for (a) developing job specialty descriptions to help identify non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions; and (b) establishing a schedule to identify these personnel. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, but has not yet taken any necessary actions to implement it. In its concurrence, DOD noted that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) would develop and provide the guidance and job specialty descriptions for DOD components to use for identifying acquisition and non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions. DOD also noted that the Director of Human Capital Initiatives has deployed an enterprise-wide coding capability for components to use in identifying acquisition and non-acquisition civilians across DOD. A DOD official stated that during 2020, both OSD and the Office of Human Capital Initiatives have developed reports that discuss issues related to the identification and training of non-acquisition personnel, including those supporting services acquisitions. This official noted that both of these reports are going through the coordination and staffing process and have not been issued. Additionally, DOD has not yet designated an accountable official responsible for efforts to help identify non-acquisition personnel supporting services acquisitions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Component Acquisition Executives provide non-acquisition personnel training needs to the Defense Acquisition University as part of the annual planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In July 2020, a DOD official stated that DOD is planning a revision to its instruction related to the education and training of DOD's acquisition workforce. The official said the revision is intended to help define the acquisition and non-acquisition workforces and the responsibilities for their respective training needs, among other things. However, the revision is in the planning stages and not be expected to be completed until the end of 2021. As a result, DOD is still not ensuring that Component Acquisition Executives provide non-acquisition personnel training needs to the Defense Acquisition University.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO meets DOD's September 2019 deadline for review and approval of DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO meets DOD's September 2019 deadline for review and approval of DOD's training curriculum for presidential appointees. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO meets DOD's November 2019 deadline for drafting, review, and approval of DOD's report on the success and failures of cross-functional teams and final submission to the Secretary for review and approval. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO and the electromagnetic spectrum operations cross-functional team clarify roles and responsibilities for providing administrative support and funding for the team beyond fiscal year 2019 in accordance with the memorandum establishing the team. (Recommendation 6)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure that Navy and Marine Corps' installation personnel verify that private developers are identifying and evaluating privatized properties for historic significance, as appropriate. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should take steps to ensure that Army installation personnel verify that private developers are identifying and evaluating privatized properties for historic significance, as appropriate. (Recommendation 2)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should take steps to ensure that Air Force installation personnel verify that private developers are identifying and evaluating privatized properties for historic significance, as appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should clarify the requirement for Navy and Marine Corps' installation personnel to conduct a physical inventory of historic properties every 3 years, including an assessment of each property's condition to ensure that facilities that have been identified and evaluated as historic are inventoried. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should clarify the requirement for Army installation personnel to conduct a physical inventory of historic properties every 3 years, including an assessment of each property's condition to ensure that facilities that have been identified and evaluated as historic are inventoried. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should clarify the requirement for Air Force installation personnel to conduct a physical inventory of historic properties every 3 years, including an assessment of each property's condition to ensure that facilities that have been identified and evaluated as historic are inventoried. (Recommendation 6)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, develop and disseminate department-wide or service-wide guidance, on training related to historic preservation to installation personnel, including information on roles and responsibilities. (Recommendation 7)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to determine and identify in final guidance for middle-tier acquisition programs the metrics that will be used to assess the performance of middle-tier acquisition programs across the military departments, including whether programs are meeting statutory objectives. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it planned to determine performance metrics in coordination with its release of its final guidance on middle-tier programs, which DOD expected to release in late 2019. In December 2019, Congress passed the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 837 in the Conference Report accompanying the Act requires DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 15, 2019, that includes guidance on the use of middle-tier acquisition authority and the metrics required to assess the performance of such a program, among other topics. DOD's report, provided to Congress in January 2020, identified metrics that DOD planned to use to assess the performance of these programs. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment subsequently leveraged these metrics in its March 2020 bi-annual review of middle-tier acquisition programs to assess program execution. However, DOD has yet to identify these metrics in guidance as we recommended, which we continue to believe is important to facilitate consistent reporting across the military departments and DOD components.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should develop a plan for how the department will assess the effect of recent acquisition reforms, including identifying who will be responsible for the assessment and what data will be needed. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it has included a division in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition to analyze the effect of recent acquisition reforms and other high-level oversight and policy issues. In December 2019, Congress took additional action. The Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to submit a report with the budget for fiscal year 2021 on the progress of implementing acquisition reform initiatives. In response, DOD provided a report to Congress in March 2020 that includes how the Secretary will identify, quantify, assess and manage program risk, describes changes to DOD's data collection and sharing processes, and describes new acquisition frameworks to be implemented. However, the report does not address how DOD will assess the acquisition reforms, what data is needed, or who is responsible. Additionally, in August 2020, the Assistant Secretary of Defense approved a plan for assessing the implementation of new acquisition pathways at DOD. However, DOD is still identifying the specific data needed to assess each acquisition pathway, as well as determining how to assess the remaining acquisition reforms we covered in our June 2019 report. Therefore, we will continue to monitor DOD efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense makes a determination as to how the CMO is to direct the business-related activities of the military departments. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DOD assess the CMO's position, and the accompanying conference report indicated that the conferees intend to disestablish the position, pending the outcome of DOD's assessments. We continue to believe that DOD needs a CMO, codified in statute as a separate position, at the right level, and with the adequate amount of resources and appropriate authority to be responsible and accountable for its business transformation efforts. In light of pending requirements to assess the CMO position, GAO will continue to monitor the department's response to these recommendations as those assessments and any related actions are completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense makes a determination regarding the CMO's relationship with the DAFAs, including whether additional DAFAs should be identified as providing shared business services and which DAFAs will be required to submit their proposed budgets for enterprise business operations to the CMO for review. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DOD assess the CMO's position, and the accompanying conference report indicated that the conferees intend to disestablish the position, pending the outcome of DOD's assessments. We continue to believe that DOD needs a CMO, codified in statute as a separate position, at the right level, and with the adequate amount of resources and appropriate authority to be responsible and accountable for its business transformation efforts. In light of pending requirements to assess the CMO position, GAO will continue to monitor the department's response to these recommendations as those assessments and any related actions are completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO and Chief Information Officer (CIO) conduct an analysis to determine which responsibilities should transfer from the CIO to the CMO, including identifying any associated resource impacts, and share the results of that analysis with the Congress. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DOD assess the CMO's position, and the accompanying conference report indicated that the conferees intend to disestablish the position, pending the outcome of DOD's assessments. We continue to believe that DOD needs a CMO, codified in statute as a separate position, at the right level, and with the adequate amount of resources and appropriate authority to be responsible and accountable for its business transformation efforts. In light of pending requirements to assess the CMO position, GAO will continue to monitor the department's response to these recommendations as those assessments and any related actions are completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense, on the basis of the determinations regarding the CMO's statutory and discretionary authorities, codify those authorities and how they are to be operationalized in formal department-wide guidance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DOD assess the CMO's position, and the accompanying conference report indicated that the conferees intend to disestablish the position, pending the outcome of DOD's assessments. We continue to believe that DOD needs a CMO, codified in statute as a separate position, at the right level, and with the adequate amount of resources and appropriate authority to be responsible and accountable for its business transformation efforts. In light of pending requirements to assess the CMO position, GAO will continue to monitor the department's response to these recommendations as those assessments and any related actions are completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Director, CAPE, the Joint Staff Surgeon, and the secretaries of the military departments, establish joint planning assumptions for developing operational medical and dental personnel requirements, including a definition of what forces should and should not be identified as "operational." (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to department officials, as of November 2019, they are drafting a report that will address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Joint Staff Surgeon, and the secretaries of the military departments, establish a method to assess options for achieving joint efficiencies in medical and dental personnel requirements and any associated risks. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to department officials, as of November 2019, they are drafting a report that will address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts. .

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Joint Staff Surgeon, and the secretaries of the military departments, apply joint planning assumptions and a method for assessing efficiencies and risk, use these to determine operational medical and dental requirements, and report to Congress. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. According to department officials, as of November 2019, they are drafting a report that will address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts..

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments, identify and mitigate limitations in the clinical readiness metric, such as data reliability, a lack of complete information on reserve component providers and patient care workload performed outside of medical treatment facilities (MTFs), and the lack of linkage between the metric and patient care and retention outcomes. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of November 2019, DOD has not taken any actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the Defense Health Agency, determines which critical wartime specialties perform high-risk, high-acuity procedures and rely upon perishable skill sets and use this information to prioritize specialties to which the clinical readiness metric could be expanded (Recommendation 5).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with each of the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the Defense Health Agency, estimates the cost and benefits, by specialty, of implementing a clinical readiness metric and use that information to determine whether DODs approach should be revised. Costs to be considered should include those needed to provide additional training for medical personnel to achieve clinical readiness thresholds and to hire additional civilian personnel in MTFs to backfill military providers who leave to attend training. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. As of November 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the military departments, perform an assessment of the suitability of federal civilian and contractor personnel to provide operational medical care and incorporate the results of the assessment into relevant policies, if warranted. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness require consideration of cost when making determinations regarding the mix of active and reserve component medical personnel. (Recommendation 2)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in collaboration with the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and the military departments, develop full cost information for active and reserve component medical personnel, and the military departments use that information in its determinations regarding the mix of active and reserve component medical personnel. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Health Agency develop a strategic total workforce plan which includes, among other things: (1) tailored human capital strategies, tools, and metrics by which to monitor and evaluate progress toward reducing personnel gaps, and; (2) integration of human capital strategies with acquisition plans, such as DOD's acquisition strategy for health care services at DOD's military treatment facilities. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, respectively, should ensure that accompanying the transfer of administrative responsibility for military treatment facilities to the Defense Health Agency, that the Defense Health Agency and the military departments develop policies and procedures for management of military personnel, including agreement on specific roles and responsibilities for the military departments and the Defense Health Agency in this process. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Corrosion Office, in coordination with the military departments, issues guidance to require a standard process for identifying and documenting the rationale for the annual funding levels needed to perform the duties of each Corrosion Executive. The guidance should, at a minimum, identify and define the cost elements and the methods that may be used to estimate the funding levels and describe the supporting documentation that should be maintained. (Recommendation 1)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Corrosion Office documents, within existing or new guidance, its process for reviewing the Military Departments' Corrosion Executive Reports prior to submitting the Corrosion Office Annual Report to Congress, including a process to consistently maintain documentation of its reviews. (Recommendation 2)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Corrosion Office develops a process to consistently maintain documentation of its reviews and evaluations of corrosion planning for major weapon system programs. These records, at a minimum, should show what comments were made by the Corrosion Office in its reviews and evaluations, and track the actions taken to resolve those comments. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that its Corrosion Executive issues clear guidance establishing a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting the adequacy of corrosion planning and oversight efforts for major weapon systems throughout the systems' life cycle, including during the early phases of the acquisition life cycle, and maintain documentation of the oversight actions. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that its Corrosion Executive issues clear guidance establishing a process for reviewing, evaluating, and documenting the adequacy of corrosion planning and oversight efforts for major weapon systems throughout the systems' life cycle, including during the early phases of the acquisition life cycle, and maintain documentation of oversight actions. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense--in coordination with the military departments; U.S. Strategic Command; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; CAPE; and other relevant components of DOD--identify in the planned charter and DOD directive clear roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In June 2019, in response to our recommendation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a charter for the NDERG that included information about the roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. The charter also indicated that this information should be included in the appropriate DOD directive and/or issuance. This effort is still in progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense--in coordination with the military departments; U.S. Strategic Command; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; CAPE; and other relevant components of DOD--establish in the planned charter and DOD directive methods for the NDERG to communicate and collaborate with other organizations that have oversight responsibilities for portions of the nuclear enterprise. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In June 2019, in response to our recommendation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a charter for the NDERG that included information about the roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. The charter also indicated that this information should be included in the appropriate DOD directive and/or issuance. This effort is still in progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (NLC3S Council) co-chairs), and U.S. Strategic Command--update the applicable DOD guidance (such as the NLC3S Council's and Executive Management Board's charters) and identify whether there is a need to request changes to statutory or presidential guidance in order to clarify changes to roles and responsibilities for NC3 oversight. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 2020, according to DOD officials, DOD is working to update applicable guidance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as NLC3S Council co-chairs),and U.S. Strategic Command--update the applicable guidance to establish methods for communication and collaboration among organizations that have oversight responsibilities for portions of the nuclear enterprise as changes are considered for charters, guidance, and laws to reflect the changes to NC3 oversight. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 2020, according to DOD officials, DOD is working to update applicable guidance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA takes steps to work with Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)--DSCA's financial service provider--and other DOD components, as appropriate, to improve the reliability of the data the DSCA obtains on all DOD components' use of FMS administrative funds, including actual execution data, at an appropriate level of detail, such as by object class. (Recommendation 1)

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 .

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS to conduct regular reconciliations of the data that DSCA collects on DOD components' use of administrative funds, to help ensure that the data are reliable. (Recommendation 2)

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 .

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should follow its requirement to conduct at least two annual reviews of military department business processes for administrative funds. (Recommendation 3)

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.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should conduct periodic (e.g., annual or biennial) reviews of other DOD components' (e.g., other than military departments) business processes for administrative funds, based on a risk-based approach. Such an approach could include consideration of whether an entity has received a prior review or representative sampling over time, as well as consideration of factors such as the results of prior audits or other identified risks. (Recommendation 4)

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.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should create and maintain a complete list of military department organizations or offices that receive administrative funds and are subject to DSCA's business process reviews. (Recommendation 5)

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.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should update DSCA's policy for selecting military department organizations for reviews of their business processes for administrative funds, to better ensure that it reflects a risk-based approach. (Recommendation 6)

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.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should clarify guidance to ensure that the DSCA officials conducting reviews of business processes for administrative funds periodically track action items until they are completed. (Recommendation 7)

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 .

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should develop a process for conducting periodic (e.g., quarterly or annual), targeted reviews of DOD components' use of administrative funds, including transactions testing, to verify that actual costs incurred are allowable and approved. (Recommendation 8)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA takes steps to work with DFAS and other DOD components, as appropriate, to improve the reliability of the data that DSCA obtains on all DOD components' use of CAS funds, including actual execution data, at an appropriate level of detail, such as by object class. (Recommendation 9)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS to conduct regular reconciliations of the data that DSCA collects on DOD components' use of CAS funds, to help ensure that the data are reliable. (Recommendation 10)

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

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should develop a process for conducting periodic (e.g., quarterly or annual), targeted reviews of DOD components' use of CAS funds, including transactions testing, to verify that actual costs incurred are allowable and approved. (Recommendation 11)

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) develops an IT enterprise architecture which includes a transition plan that provides a road map for improving the department's IT and computing infrastructure, including for each of its business processes. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of the department's information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report includes high-level descriptions of the current and target architectures, and high-level plans and schedules for transitioning from the current to the target architecture. The report states that because of the incremental approach to developing the architecture, the plans and schedules are notional and depend on several factors over which the DOD CIO has limited or no control, such as funding and changing world events, priorities, and technology. The report also describes plans to integrate the IEA with the department's business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for integrating the architectures. According to the report, for the next increment of the architecture, the department plans to develop compliance criteria and plans for developing an ontology, database, and tool suite. The department did not provide a time frame for completing the next increment. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO and Chief Management Officer work together to define a specific time frame for when the department plans to integrate its business and IT architectures and ensure that the architectures are integrated. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: In October 2019, the DOD CIO developed a report on the first increment of version 3 of its information enterprise architecture (IEA). The report described planned efforts related to integrating the IEA and the business enterprise architecture. However, the report did not define a specific time frame for when the department plans to integrate the architectures.

Recommendation: Congress should consider, in any future BRAC authorization, a requirement for DOD to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and to track the achievement of its goals. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: This Matter for Congressional Consideration is contingent on the authorization of another round of BRAC. As of June 30, 2020, Congress has not authorized another round of BRAC.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and the Environment work with DOD's construction agents, military departments, and other offices to improve DOD's MILCON cost estimating guidance (i.e., DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria) by fully incorporating all the steps needed for developing high-quality reliable cost estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve its cost estimating guidance by fully incorporating all 12 steps needed for developing high-quality, reliable estimates. DOD stated that it did not believe that it is suitable to fully apply all 12 steps to any construction project due to characteristics of the military construction program that DOD believes differ from those of major system or weapon acquisition programs. However, DOD also stated that it concurred with the intent and general applicability of the twelve steps to military construction and that DOD cost estimating guidance lacks specificity in several of these areas. DOD acknowledged that expanding its cost guidance to more fully incorporate these steps would benefit the military construction program, and told us that it is planning to address this by revising its cost guidance. In our report, we recognize that it may not be appropriate to fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project. For example, it may not be realistic or to the military departments' benefit to conduct a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost projects. Accordingly, we did not recommend that DOD fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project, but rather that it fully incorporate the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria so that, at least, each step is considered for each project. DOD could then choose to establish thresholds-based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects-to determine for which the 12 steps should be fully applied or other circumstances in which some steps might not be applicable. We believe DOD's planned revisions once completed will meet the general intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO fully address all requirements in section 911 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 and incorporate leading practices for effective cross-functional teams in guidance on Secretary of Defense-empowered cross-functional teams. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In December 2019, the Secretary of Defense approved DOD's guidance on cross-functional teams. We found that this two-page guidance addresses most, but not all, of the 911 requirements and leading practices for cross-functional teams. Specifically, it addresses in whole or in part six of the seven section 911 requirements and six of the eight leading practices. The Secretary-approved guidance also directs the Chief Management Officer (CMO) to develop more detailed implementing guidance. According to an Office of the CMO (OCMO) official, OCMO plans to use previously drafted terms of reference as the basis for the CMO's more detailed implementing guidance. Based on our review, when the Secretary of Defense approved guidance is considered along with the draft terms of reference expected to serve as detailed implementing guidance, both documents will fully address all section 911 requirements and leading practices for effective cross-functional teams. To fully implement this recommendation, the CMO will need to develop and issue this detailed implementing guidance to fully address section 911 requirements and our leading practices for effective cross-functional teams. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, OCMO was still in the process of developing the detailed implementing guidance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO either: (a) provide training for presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed individuals in the Office of the Secretary of Defense that includes the required elements--leadership, modern organizational practice, and collaboration--in section 911 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, or (b) develop criteria for obtaining a waiver and have the Secretary of Defense request such a waiver from the President for these required elements if the individual possesses--through training and experience--the skill and knowledge otherwise to be provided through a course of instruction. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2018, an official from the Office of the Chief Management Officer (OCMO) stated that OCMO had revised the draft training curriculum for individuals filling presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to include all of the required elements in section 911. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, the curriculum had been approved and the training had been provided, but as of July 2020, the department had not provided documentation of the updated curriculum or of the training being provided. To fully implement this recommendation, we will need to review the revised training curriculum to determine if it contains all of the required elements in section 911 and obtain documentation that presidential appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense have received the training or were granted training waivers.

Recommendation: To minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication and more efficiently use DOD's U.S. distribution centers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (or the subsequent Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment), in conjunction with the Director of DLA, and the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, to assess and direct the implementation of actions, as appropriate, that can be taken using existing authorities to close, realign, or dispose of existing infrastructure.

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.

Recommendation: The Deputy Secretary of Defense, in his capacity as the CMO and in coordination with the DOD DCMO, should take action, as appropriate and necessary, to improve the monitoring of the military departments' performance on business transformation efforts. This could be done by revising the Defense Business Council's charter to make the council responsible for monitoring such performance to reflect the responsibilities of the DOD DCMO to monitor performance across the entire department.

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.

Recommendation: To implement DOD guidance requiring the military departments to prepare readiness and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) budget impact assessments during drawdown planning, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments to develop guidance that assigns responsibility for the preparation of impact assessments and includes direction on how such assessments should be conducted as part of drawdown planning.

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.

Recommendation: To implement DOD guidance requiring the military departments to prepare readiness and O&M budget impact assessments during drawdown planning, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Director, DSCA, to develop an internal control mechanism to determine whether the military departments have completed the required impact assessments before moving forward with drawdown planning and execution.

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.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the department can better achieve business process reengineering and enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits, the Secretary of Defense should utilize the results of our portfolio manager survey to determine additional actions that can improve the department's management of its business process reengineering and enterprise architecture activities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has made progress implementing the recommendation. Specifically, in January 2017, the department issued a business enterprise architecture improvement plan. The plan was intended to address business enterprise architecture usability and deficiencies in information supporting the investment management process. As part of its planning efforts, the department identified opportunities to address the results of our survey. For example, according to the plan, our survey results were used to identify opportunities for improving management and integration of existing enterprise business processes and investments; assessing duplication early in the analysis phase and finding process and capability reuse across the department; and providing a federated business enterprise architecture information environment and capabilities to discover and exchange information from other sources. The plan included delivering three major capabilities. In October 2019, the office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) demonstrated its new capabilities to GAO. Further, in October 2019, staff within the office of the CMO were working to move the capabilities to a government-approved host environment, although the office had not yet finalized its plan to do so. As of November 2019, the department had not yet deployed the capabilities.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's ability to make consistent and informed decisions in its management of the TCC program in accordance with internal control standards, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should require the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to document the procedures for approving projects within the TCC program for civilian institutions.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not agree with the recommendation. In 2016, DOD's Corrosion Office consistently maintained that its existing process is adequately documented in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and the Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) Definitions Document. However, GAO maintained that DOD could enhance its oversight of corrosion projects by documenting how it approves projects for civilian institutions. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. Specifically, the Corrosion Office plans to include information on documenting procedures for approving projects 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

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's ability to make consistent and informed decisions in its management of the TCC program in accordance with internal control standards, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should require the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to document the procedures for selecting and approving projects within the TCC program for military academic institutions.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not agree with the recommendation. In 2016, DOD's Corrosion Office had consistently maintained that its existing process is adequately documented in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and the Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) Definitions Document. However, GAO maintained that DOD could enhance its oversight of corrosion projects by documenting how it selects and approves TCC projects for military academic institutions. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to include information on documenting procedures for selecting and approving projects 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.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's ability to make consistent and informed decisions in its management of the TCC program in accordance with internal control standards, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should require the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to document the procedures for selecting and approving military research labs supporting civilian and military institutions in conducting projects within the TCC program.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, the Corrosion Policy and Oversight office is currently re-writing Appendix A of the "Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC)" document to include steps and grading criteria for decision makers when selecting and approving military research labs supporting civilian and military institutions conducting projects with the TCC program. The Corrosion Policy and Oversight office will complete this re-write and the post procedures to their web site by November 30, 2018. As of March 2019, the Corrosion Policy and Oversight office plans to include procedures for selecting and approving labs to support institutions in a new DOD manual on corrosion. Its goal to create this new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD continues to implement the full range of institutional management controls needed to address its business systems modernization high-risk area, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense, as the department's Chief Management Officer, establish a policy that clarifies the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among the Chief Management Officer, Deputy Chief Management Officer, DOD and military department Chief Information Officers, Principal Staff Assistants, military department Chief Management Officers, and the heads of the military departments and defense agencies, associated with the development of a federated business enterprise architecture (BEA). Among other things, the policy should address the development and implementation of an overarching taxonomy and associated ontologies to help ensure that each of the respective portions of the architecture will be properly linked and aligned. In addition, the policy should address alignment and coordination of business process areas, military department and defense agency activities associated with developing and implementing each of the various components of the BEA, and relationships among these entities.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to identify how many headquarters personnel it has, including military, civilian and contractor personnel, and improve the information Congress and DOD need to ensure that headquarters organizations are appropriately sized and overhead positions are reduced to the extent possible, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Director of Administration and Management, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to revise DOD Instruction 5100.73, Major DOD Headquarters Activities, to (1) include all major DOD headquarters activity organizations, (2) specify how contractors performing major DOD headquarters activity functions will be identified and included in headquarters reporting, (3) clarify how components are to compile the major DOD headquarters activities information needed to respond to the reporting requirements in section 1109 of the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, and (4) establish time frames for implementing the actions above to improve tracking and reporting headquarters resources.

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.