Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Army Futures Command, in collaboration with the Army Contracting Command and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, to regularly analyze information on the use of prototype other transactions for Army modernization. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Army Futures Command, in collaboration with the Army Contracting Command, to regularly analyze information on the use of grants, cooperative agreements, research other transactions, technology investment agreements, partnership intermediary agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements for Army modernization. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure the Commanding General of the Army Contracting Command establishes consistent practices for its headquarters to collect, archive, and share lessons learned for research and prototype other transactions, grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements, and partnership intermediary agreements. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure the Commanding General of the Army Contracting Command has the command's contracting centers work with its headquarters to establish consistent, coordinated practices for the contracting centers to collect, analyze, validate, archive, and share lessons learned for research and prototype other transactions, grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements, and partnership intermediary agreements. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure the Commanding General of the Combat Capabilities Development Command establishes consistent, coordinated practices for the command to collect, analyze, validate, archive, and share lessons learned for cooperative research and development agreements. (Recommendation 5)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure an archive is established to store and share lessons learned information related to the Army's alternative approaches for engaging industry and academia. (Recommendation 6)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Chief Management Officer and other entities, as appropriate, to establish measures to determine if the department is succeeding in achieving its goal to improve its financial management systems. Specifically, it should document targets and time frames to define the level of performance to be achieved. It should also document how DOD plans to measure expected outcomes by identifying data sources, how it plans to measure values, and how DOD plans to verify and validate measured values. (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 direct the Chief Management Officer and other entities, as appropriate, to establish a specific time frame for developing an enterprise road map to implement its financial management systems strategy, and ensure that it is developed. The road map should document the current and future states at a high level, from an architecture perspective, and present a transition plan for moving from the current to the future in an efficient, effective manner. The road map should discuss performance gaps, resource requirements, and planned solutions, and it should map DOD's financial management systems strategy to projects and budget. The plan should also document the tasks, time frames, and milestones for implementing new solutions, and include an inventory of systems. (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 direct the Chief Management Officer and other entities, as appropriate, to develop detailed migration plans for the Air Force's General Accounting and Finance System-Reengineered, Navy's Standard Accounting and Reporting System, and Army's Standard Finance System and the Standard Operation and Maintenance Army Research and Development System. (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 direct the Chief Management Officer and other entities, as appropriate, to establish performance goals that include performance indicators, targets and time frames, to monitor the status of efforts to address IT-related audit findings. (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 should direct the Chief Management Officer and other entities, as appropriate, to implement a mechanism for identifying financial management systems that support the preparation of the department's financial statements in the department's systems inventory and budget data, and identify a complete list of financial management systems. (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 direct the Chief Management Officer and other entities, as appropriate, to ensure that the department limits investments in financial management systems to only what is essential to maintain functioning systems and help ensure system security until it implements the other recommendations in this report. (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 Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), develop and implement a DOD-wide strategy to remediate real property asset control issues. (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it was committed to placing increased leadership emphasis on real property asset controls to ensure mission readiness, audit readiness, testing for existence and completeness, and maintaining internal controls.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), develop department-wide instructions for performing the E&C verifications. (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it was committed to placing increased leadership emphasis on real property asset policies and instructions to ensure consistent and repeatable existence and completeness verifications.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command fully analyzes the use of overtime among shipyard production shops, and updates workforce requirements to avoid the consistent use of overtime to meet planned maintenance requirements. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command identify a timeframe for completing the development of metrics for its Shipyard Performance to Plan initiative and complete the development of metrics to address the main factors contributing to maintenance delays and improve the timely completion of ship maintenance at Navy shipyards. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Naval Sea Systems Command develop and implements goals, action plans, milestones, and a monitoring process for its Shipyard Performance to Plan initiative to address the main factors contributing to maintenance delays and improving the timely completion of ship maintenance at Navy shipyards. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the MPF program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. 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 direct the OMFV program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. 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 direct the OMFV program to inform requirements by conducting systems engineering reviews at key decision points consistent with our leading practices for acquisition, as the program office finalizes its acquisition approach. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to perform system and design reviews to inform the development of final requirements. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director, MDA, should ensure an independent assessment is conducted of the agency's process for developing and executing its annual BMDS flight test plan. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation stating that MDA will conduct an independent assessment as recommended.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commander, Army Materiel Command, develops procedures to help ensure that it will incorporate depot stakeholder input into the new metrics framework for the Army's organic industrial base through iterative and ongoing processes. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that the Marine Corps Logistics Command establishes a complete baseline schedule, which includes all planned depot maintenance work for the fiscal year, against which to measure performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
Status: Open

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commander, Army Materiel Command, develops guidance that synchronizes the Army's timelines for required inputs from Army depot maintenance customers who use funds from the Procurement; Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; and Operations and Maintenance budgets with the depots' timelines for development of their finalized budget estimate submissions to AMC. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commander, Army Materiel Command, provides its non-Army customers with guidance that will help ensure that the depots have all updated maintenance needs in sufficient detail from non-Army customers prior to the depots' finalized budget estimate submissions to AMC. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Army Organic Industrial Base Corporate Board oversees a study that includes a recurring, comprehensive, and systematic analysis of Army depot data to identify trends and causes behind changes in depot maintenance schedules; and that it uses this analysis to recommend actions to reduce unplanned maintenance work, as appropriate and necessary. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that a comprehensive metric (or set of metrics) is established to track the progress of its combined accession and retention efforts to obtain sufficient quantities of RPA pilots and sensor operators needed to achieve its objective of implementing the combat-to-dwell policy as planned. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. It stated that its ongoing efforts could be better integrated to allow for greater analysis in tracking progress toward meeting the combat-to -dwell policy. DOD also stated that it results from an ongoing study will inform the analysis for this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of the study and any other actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the number of instructor positions needed at the RPA training unit at Holloman Air Force Base is updated by applying more complete, accurate and timely information to better reflect the training curriculum and instructor needs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. It noted that it is planning to conduct a study on the appropriate pilot and sensor operator instructor manning. The department estimated that they study would be completed in about a year. We will continue to monitor the status and results of the study.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Air Systems Command and Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers effectively use historical data to analyze turnaround time and establish accurate turnaround time targets for fixed-wing aircraft depot maintenance packages. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Commander, Naval Air Forces and Commander, Naval Air Force, Pacific provide depot planners regular reporting on fixed-wing aircraft maintenance performed outside the Navy aviation depots by an operational unit or at an intermediate maintenance facility to ensure they have information on the current condition and depot maintenance needs of individual aircraft. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Air Systems Command and Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers establish formal processes and related guidance for communication and coordination between depot stakeholders to inform maintenance requirements planning. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Navy has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Secretaries of the Military Departments revise AFI 36-3026, Volume 1, to provide detailed guidance for financial determinations and to establish consistent medical standards for all of the military services to use in determining the dependency status of incapacitated adult children, including what household and personal expenses and income are allowable, how these are to be calculated, and what medical documentation is required. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and indicated that it would develop and apply a single set of financial and medical standards across the Department. DOD indicated that these standards would be published in an upcoming policy memorandum.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, identifies and implements the most effective means to provide information to families of incapacitated adult children to assist them in completing the dependency determination process. Such methods could include providing additional application instructions to families, making improvements to the DD Form 137-5, Dependency Statement – Incapacitated Child Over Age 21, such as providing detailed explanations of allowable expenses and how they should be calculated, providing detailed information about available support services, and providing additional and more advance notice to families. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and noted that existing instructional tools exist to help families navigate the dependency determination process. However, DOD indicated that a Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness user group will identify additional means to improve the information available to military families.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness clearly defines oversight responsibilities of the Department of Defense Human Resources Activity and the military services for the incapacitated adult child dependency process, including the consistent tracking, monitoring, and reporting of reliable data on incapacitated adult child dependency applications and determinations across the military services for use in data-driven decision-making. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that while current DOD guidance does not include specific oversight responsibilities for the incapacitated adult child program DOD concurred with the need for a single office to provide oversight of the program. DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness would identify the office and assign responsibility within 60 days of our report.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness directs the Department of Defense Human Resources Activity to exercise its oversight responsibilities for the incapacitated adult child dependency process, as clarified, including the use of consistent and reliable data on applications and determinations for data-driven decision-making to identify and address deficiencies and to inform program efforts. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, however DOD noted that it would address the recommendation after it takes action on our recommendation related to defining oversight responsibilities for the incapacitated adult child dependency determination process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness clarifies the definition of a nondependent family member in DOD Instruction 1315.19 and the circumstances under which nondependent family members should be considered for services provided by the Exceptional Family Member Program. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will review its policy to determine if the definition of a nondependent family member continues to be current and appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Secretaries of the Military Departments revise military service-level policy to ensure consistency with the DOD Instruction 1315.19 definition of nondependent family members and the circumstance under which a nondependent family member should be considered for services provided by the Exceptional Family Member Program. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that if DOD determines the current definition of a nondependent family member is no longer appropriate, it will ensure that Service-level policies will be revised to be consistent with the definition.

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Logistics Agency
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 include a step for the opportunity for PCR review of the proposed contract and subcontracting plan in agency procedures and memorandums, and develop a mechanism for documenting whether the opportunity for PCR review was provided. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to fulfill the requirement that contracting officers ensure that subcontracting reports are submitted by contractors in a timely manner. For example, the agency could require contracting officers to verify that prior reports were submitted when reviewing current submissions. (Recommendation 5)

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of DLA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 6)

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

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

Recommendation: The Administrator of the GSA should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps to ensure contracting officers compare subcontracting goals in contractor report submissions to goals in the approved subcontracting plan and address any discrepancies. (Recommendation 9)

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

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

Recommendation: The SBA Administrator should ensure Commercial Market Representatives clearly and consistently document compliance reviews and maintain these records. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides guidance to the services, for example, in its forthcoming diversity and inclusion strategic plan, to develop plans, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor recruitment and retention efforts of female active-duty servicemembers in the military. (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 develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Army's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Navy's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Marine Corps' female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
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 develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and timeframes, to guide and monitor the Air Force's female active-duty servicemember recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to develop a plan to attain mature technologies when needed for each ABMS development area, which includes an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity that is updated to reflect changes, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with an initial list of technologies and an assessment of their maturity, and a plan to attain mature technologies for each development area. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to prepare a cost estimate that is developed in accordance with cost estimating leading practices, to include regularly updating the estimate to reflect ABMS changes and actual costs, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 the department expects to provide Congress with a cost estimate of ABMS development activities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should direct the Chief Architect to prepare an affordability analysis that should be regularly updated, and update Congress quarterly. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with the affordability analysis for the fiscal year 2021 budget request. In addition, the department plans to provide an affordability analysis as part of the fiscal year 2022 budget request submission to Congress. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should formalize and document acquisition authority and decision-making responsibilities of the Air Force offices involved in the planning and execution of ABMS, to include the Chief Architect. This document should be included as part of the submission to Congress in June 2020 and communicated to the Air Force offices that support ABMS. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation but, as of August 2020, has not yet taken any action to implement it. Officials indicated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 the department expects to provide Congress with documentation of decision-making authorities. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO takes appropriate steps to ensure implementation of the DC3I tasks. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation. 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 DOD components develop plans with scheduled completion dates to implement the four remaining CDIP tasks overseen by DOD CIO. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation. 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 Deputy Secretary of Defense identifies a DOD component to oversee the implementation of the seven CDIP tasks not overseen by DOD CIO and report on progress implementing them. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation. 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 DOD components accurately monitor and report information on the extent that users have completed the Cyber Awareness Challenge training as well as the number of users whose access to the network was revoked because they have not completed the training. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation. 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 DOD CIO ensures all DOD components, including DARPA, require their users to take the Cyber Awareness Challenge training developed by DISA. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. 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 a component to monitor the extent to which practices are implemented to protect the department's network from key cyberattack techniques. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation. 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 DOD CIO assesses the extent to which senior leaders' have more complete information to make risk-based decisions—and revise the recurring reports (or develop a new report) accordingly. Such information could include DOD's progress on implementing (a) cybersecurity practices identified in cyber hygiene initiatives and (b) cyber hygiene practices to protect DOD networks from key cyberattack techniques. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander, in coordination with the military services and the Coast Guard, develop a process for tracking data during the first 3 years of the Global Household Goods Contract to inform its planned manpower study during the third year of the contract to more precisely determine DP3 manpower needs and associated costs. (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, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander develop performance metrics for those DP3 activities that will not be a part of the Global Household Goods Contract, such as servicemember counseling and claims resolution that will, at least in part, continue to be performed by the military services. (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, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander articulate the linkage, where appropriate, between DP3 performance metrics, including Global Household Goods Contract performance indicators, and overarching program goals. (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 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 change its definition for setting operational availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy by adding information that defines the operational availability requirement by mission area in addition to the ship level and includes all equipment failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that it would work with the Navy and Joint Staff to revisit requirements definitions for shipbuilding programs to better ensure that they are traceable to a ship's mission and can be used across ship development and fielding. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should change its definition for setting materiel availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System requirements policy to include all factors that could result in a ship being unavailable for operations, such as unplanned maintenance, unplanned losses, and training. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation stating that it will work with the Navy and the Joint Staff to revisit requirements definitions for shipbuilding programs to better ensure materiel availability requirements include all factors that could preclude a ship from operating. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update existing operational availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When revising these requirements, the Navy should set operational availability requirements that: (1) are based on failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions and (2) are set at the mission level instead of ship level. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply only to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process. While important steps towards improving the requirements setting process, DOD officials did not state whether any policy changes would apply to current shipbuilding programs. As we discussed in our report, at least four ship classes have plans for a new flight, block, and/or major modification. DOD and the Navy may miss key opportunities to improve the Navy's sustainment requirements if it excludes existing programs that have established requirements but have yet to start design or construction.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once DOD requirements setting policy is revised, to update the materiel availability requirements for ongoing shipbuilding programs. When developing or revising these requirements, the Navy should set materiel availability requirements that fully capture all factors that could preclude a ship from being ready when needed. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that changes to the requirements setting policy will apply to new shipbuilding programs. As of June 2020, DOD officials told us that there are two upcoming opportunities to make changes to DOD Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy and that these recommendations will receive consideration during this process.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO, once the Navy revises its sustainment requirements, to ensure that shipbuilding programs report operational availability and materiel availability requirements in Selected Acquisition Reports, and alternatives to the Selected Acquisition Reports, for Congress. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and will report operational and materiel availability in the Selected Acquisition Reports based on new definitions in DOD guidance. Therefore, we plan to close this recommendation once DOD updates its definitions and reports numbers in the SAR based on these new definitions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to ensure that cost estimators follow current guidance and GAO-identified best practices and conduct sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation stating that it agrees that the use of sensitivity, uncertainty, and risk analyses is a best practice to ensure credible, defensible life cycle cost estimates. However, the Navy has yet to issue any policy updates or provide any evidence that it is conducting sensitivity analyses and other analyses to improve their assessment of cost risk in the O&S costs in shipbuilding programs' life-cycle cost estimates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) to ensure all shipbuilding programs develop and update LCSPs, in accordance with DOD policy, that demonstrate how a ship class can be affordably operated and maintained while meeting sustainment requirements, including associated business case analyses and identifying sustainment risk. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will ensure that all shipbuilding program develop and maintain accurate and complete life cycle sustainment plans. However, as we state in our report, the Navy did not have any accurate and completed life cycle sustainment plans and, as July 2020, has not updated any of these plans.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to evaluate and implement changes to the ILA in order to position the ILA to effectively identify key sustainment risks and make recommendations for risk mitigation, which may include existing Navy proposals to change the ILA process. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: The department concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Navy will undertake a review and will approve any updated Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) policy that emphasizes risk identification and mitigation in the ILA review. In July 2020, Navy officials stated that the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment co-chaired a system-level ILA Working Group in 2020 to rewrite the Navy ILA Handbook to address key deficiencies in the current ILA process and to emphasize the use of a readiness at cost model. ILA Handbook and associated Secretary of Navy Instructions is currently in comment adjudication. In addition, Naval Sea Systems Command is developing an ILA database that provides stakeholders with visibility and insight into their respective programs' ILA-identified sustainment risks to closure. Once completed, Navy officials state that these items should implement the needed improvements to ILAs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to ensure sustainment-related briefing topics prescribed by the Navy's acquisition policy are consistently discussed at Gate reviews. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has updated its Gate 6 sustainment sufficiency process and is executing a new Gate 7 sustainment review. In July 2020, Navy officials reported to us that the Chief of Naval Operations and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition will collaborate to ensure sustainment focus areas are properly emphasized at all Gate reviews. As our report states, focusing on sustainment at Gate 7 is likely insufficient to address many of the problems we found in the report. However, as of July 2020, the Navy has yet to provide us with evidence that demonstrate an increase in focus on sustainment during gate briefings or any of the new Gate 7 briefings.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the ASN (RD&A) and the CNO to implement the sustainment program baseline initiative for shipbuilding programs and, in so doing, develop a mechanism that ensures that sustainment outcomes are a factor in shipbuilding programs' decision-making during the acquisition process. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and Navy acquisition leadership officials stated that they will review the results of the demonstration programs for the Sustainment Program Baseline initiative and implement guidance for shipbuilding and all programs in subsequent guidance and policy concerning Sustainment Program Baselines. In updating its response to our recommendations in July 2020, the Navy is planning to implement the Sustainment Program Baseline as a pilot program for ships and submarines in fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should revise SECNAVINST 5000.2 and other associated guidance to ensure PSMs are assigned to shipbuilding program offices in time to inform early acquisition decisions, including development of the program's sustainment requirements and LCSPs. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: the Navy concurred with this recommendation and stated that they will ensure that Product Support Managers (PSM) are assigned to acquisition programs ahead of Milestone A in compliance with existing DoD PSM policies. However, as of July 2020, the Navy did not state that it is planning to revise SECNAVINST 5000.2.

Recommendation: Congress should consider developing an oversight mechanism for evaluating shipbuilding programs' sustainment cost estimate growth during the acquisition process, with requirements for the Navy to: (1) report sustainment cost estimate growth information to Congress and (2) reassess shipbuilding programs that are experiencing a high level of sustainment cost estimate growth.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there are several draft bills that would address this matter.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops a program-wide process for measuring, collecting, and tracking information on how ALIS is affecting the performance of the F-35 fleet to include, but not be limited to, its effects on mission capability rates. (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 the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops and implements a strategy for the re-design of ALIS. The strategy should be detailed enough to clearly identify and assess the goals, key risks or uncertainties, and costs of re-designing the system. (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 Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to take steps to ensure that the details of the pilot program's data protections are incorporated into the existing agreements. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Status: Open

Comments: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) concurred with this recommendation. In May 2020, OUSD(R&E)/L&PO stated it will require the Primary Sponsor for each applicable federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to provide documentation that shows that the details of the pilot program's data protections have been incorporated into existing sponsoring agreements and contracts, and estimated these actions would be completed in early Fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to take steps to ensure that the FFRDCs and sponsors are implementing the pilot program's protections for sensitive data. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Status: Open

Comments: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) concurred with this recommendation. In May 2020, OUSD(R&E)/L&PO stated it will task the Primary Sponsor for each applicable federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to provide a report detailing the FFRDC's plan for implementing the pilot program's protections for sensitive data and confirming that the FFRDC is adhering to that plan. OUSD(R&E)/L&PO estimated these actions would be completed in early Fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to establish a monitoring and oversight mechanism to ensure that primary sponsors submit complete information on pilot projects, as required by DOD's guidance for the pilot program. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Status: Open

Comments: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) concurred with this recommendation. In May 2020, OUSD(R&E)/L&PO stated it will develop a monitoring and oversight plan, and estimated it would be completed in early Fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to develop a plan that outlines the methodology by which DOD will assess the pilot and how and when information collected will be analyzed to evaluate the pilot program. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Status: Open

Comments: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) concurred with this recommendation. In May 2020, OUSD(R&E)/L&PO stated it will develop and coordinate a plan that outlines the methodology by which DOD will assess the pilot as well as the methodology for collecting and analyzing information to evaluate the pilot program. OUSD(R&E)/L&PO estimated these actions would be completed in early Fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to develop a plan to identify and evaluate lessons learned from the pilot program. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Status: Open

Comments: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) concurred with this recommendation. In May 2020, OUSD(R&E)/L&PO stated it will develop a plan to identify and evaluate lessons learned from the pilot program, and estimated the plan would be completed in early Fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to develop a plan for obtaining input from stakeholders on the pilot program. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Status: Open

Comments: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) concurred with this recommendation. In May 2020, OUSD(R&E)/L&PO stated it will develop a plan to obtain stakeholder inputs for use in evaluating the pilot program, and estimated the plan would be completed in early Fall 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that written ACSA guidance includes recordkeeping procedures related to ACSA congressional notifications and signature dates to help enable the provision of complete information for Congress. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-20-309, published in March 2020. At that time, DOD provided a copy of a February 2020 memorandum issued in response to our draft recommendation that outlined procedures to capture and preserve information about ACSA establishment, including the dates of DOD's congressional notifications of intent to designate countries for ACSAs and agreement signature dates. In April 2020, DOD provided evidence confirming appropriate distribution of the memorandum. As of May 2020, we continue to work with DOD officials to secure evidence confirming its implementation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should take steps to verify the accuracy of ACSA order statuses recorded in DOD's system of record, and make corrections as appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-20-309, published in March 2020. As we confirm DOD efforts in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should implement a process to reconcile data in financial systems with the data and associated documents collected and stored in DOD's ACSA system of record on a periodic basis. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-20-309, published in March 2020. As we confirm DOD efforts in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should develop and implement a mechanism to record and track the extent to which it is meeting required time frames to receive reimbursement for ACSA orders. (Recommendation 5).

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-20-309, published in March 2020. As we confirm DOD efforts in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should take steps to improve invoicing of ACSA orders, such as identifying ACSA orders recorded in DOD's system of record that have not been invoiced and sending invoices to partner countries. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-20-309, published in March 2020. As we confirm DOD efforts in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should implement a process to monitor ACSA orders recorded as overdue in DOD's system of record, and take steps to resolve outstanding reimbursements, as appropriate. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its official comment letter included as an appendix in GAO-20-309, published in March 2020. As we confirm DOD efforts in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should assign responsibility to an entity to conduct a single, comprehensive systematic analysis of overseas surface ship maintenance delays. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. 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 ensure the designated entity conducts a comprehensive, systematic analysis to identify the underlying, interrelated causes of overseas surface ship maintenance delays. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. 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 use the results of the analysis to develop a plan to address surface ship maintenance delays overseas. Such a plan should incorporate results-oriented elements, including analytically based goals, identification of risks to achieving those goals, identification of required resources and stakeholders, metrics to measure progress, and regular reporting on progress. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. 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 ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command assesses and mitigates risks posed by any challenges, such as persistent delays and capacity limitations, to successful implementation of its new maintenance approach in Japan. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. 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 ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command conducts analysis to include overseas maintenance requirements as part of its long-term maintenance plan to support the planned growth and readiness of the fleet. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense concurred with this recommendation. 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 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, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should expand the scope of the department's centralized database on problematic sexual behavior in children and youth, which is under development, to also track information on all incidents involving the abuse of a child (physical, sexual, emotional, and neglect) reported to the Family Advocacy Program or investigated by a military law enforcement organization, regardless of whether the offender was another child, an adult, or someone in a noncaregiving role at the time of the incident. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should, as part of the ongoing development of the centralized database, identify and define the elements to be tracked by each responsible organization, such as the Family Advocacy Program and military law enforcement. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should develop a plan for how it will use the data it will collect in the centralized database to help ensure data-driven decision-making is used to inform program efforts. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should establish a reliable schedule for the development and implementation of the centralized database on problematic sexual behavior in children and youth that includes key activities, the timeframes and resources needed to execute them, and GAO-identified practices for developing and maintaining a reliable schedule. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should direct the service Family Advocacy Programs and military law enforcement organizations to document in their respective databases the date that they notified the other entity of a reported incident of child abuse. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should issue guidance that describes the process through which the service Family Advocacy Programs are to receive and incorporate information into their central registries regarding child abuse allegations and determinations involving their servicemembers and dependents that were recorded by another service's installation Family Advocacy Program. Such guidance should include a mechanism to monitor that the process is occurring consistently. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should develop a process to monitor how reported incidents of child abuse are screened at installations to help ensure that all reported child abuse incidents that should be presented to an Incident Determination Committee are consistently presented and therefore tracked. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a process to monitor how reported incidents of child abuse are screened at installations to help ensure that all reported child abuse incidents that should be presented to an Incident Determination Committee are consistently presented and therefore tracked. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops a process to monitor how reported incidents of child abuse are screened at installations to help ensure that all reported child abuse incidents that should be presented to an Incident Determination Committee are consistently presented and therefore tracked. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop a process to monitor how reported incidents of child abuse are screened at installations to help ensure that all reported child abuse incidents that should be presented to an Incident Determination Committee are consistently presented and therefore tracked. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Director of the Department of Defense Education Activity, clarifies Department of Defense Education Activity guidance to define what types of incidents must be reported as "serious incidents" to help ensure that all serious incidents of which Department of Defense Education Activity leadership needs to be informed are accurately and consistently reported by school administrators. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should expand the voting membership of the Incident Determination Committee to include medical personnel with the requisite knowledge and experience. (Recommendation 12)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should establish efforts to comprehensively inform victims' families about how reported incidents of child abuse will be addressed following the report, such as a comprehensive guide that explains the process the Family Advocacy Program and military law enforcement organizations will follow, and available victim services. (Recommendation 13)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should establish efforts to comprehensively inform victims' families about how reported incidents of child abuse will be addressed following the report, such as a comprehensive guide that explains the process the Family Advocacy Program and military law enforcement organizations will follow, and available victim services. (Recommendation 14)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps establishes efforts to comprehensively inform victims' families about how reported incidents of child abuse will be addressed following the report, such as a comprehensive guide that explains the process the Family Advocacy Program and military law enforcement organizations will follow, and available victim services. (Recommendation 15)

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

Comments: The Navy partially concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should establish efforts to comprehensively inform victims' families about how reported incidents of child abuse will be addressed following the report, such as a comprehensive guide that explains the process the Family Advocacy Program and military law enforcement organizations will follow, and available victim services. (Recommendation 16)

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

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, should clarify, in guidance, the circumstances under which commanders may exercise their authority to remove a child from a potentially unsafe home on an overseas installation. (Recommendation 17)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the Director of the Defense Health Agency, establishes processes that help ensure children who are sexually abused overseas have timely access to a certified pediatric sexual assault forensic examiner to conduct the examination. Initiatives could include certifying pediatricians or adult sexual assault forensic examiners as pediatric examiners during mandatory training or establishing shared regional assets. (Recommendation 18)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Deputy Attorney General, should seek avenues to improve communication between the military criminal investigative organizations and United States Attorneys for relevant cases involving child victims to help ensure that investigators are notified when prosecution is declined, including the reasons for the declination when appropriate, such as details about any investigative deficiencies. (Recommendation 19)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should seek to develop a memorandum of understanding with the National Children's Alliance that makes children's advocacy center services available to all Army installations and thereby increase awareness of those services across the department. (Recommendation 20)

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

Comments: The Army partially concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should continue to develop a memorandum of understanding with the National Children's Alliance that makes children's advocacy center services available to all Navy installations and thereby increase awareness of those services across the department. (Recommendation 21)

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

Comments: The Navy partially concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps continues to develop a memorandum of understanding with the National Children's Alliance that makes children's advocacy center services available to all Marine Corps installations and thereby increase awareness of those services across the service. (Recommendation 22)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should seek to develop a memorandum of understanding with the National Children's Alliance that makes children's advocacy center services available to all Air Force installations and thereby increase awareness of those services across the department. (Recommendation 23)

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

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness create, share, and maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all DOD sharing venues (i.e., working groups), including points of contact, related to depot maintenance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to our report, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness will create, share, and maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all DOD sharing venues related to depot maintenance with associated points of contact. The estimated completion date is August 2020. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that Army Materiel Command reestablish and maintain organizations dedicated to sharing materiel best practices and lessons learned, as required by Army regulations. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to our report, the Army is working to update policies to accurately reflect current activities for capturing, preserving, and distributing lessons learned and best practices throughout the organic industrial base. The estimated completion date is no later than December 2022. 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 coordination with the military departments, collect consistent information on the replacement costs of military physicians and dentists and use this information to inform investment decisions in the package of incentives to recruit and retain military physicians and dentists. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness: Defense Health Agency
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 coordination with the military departments, collect consistent information on current and historical retention data, to include data on the percentage of eligible physicians and dentists who accept retention bonuses, and use this information to inform investment decisions in the package of incentives to retain military physicians and dentists. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness: Defense Health Agency
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 coordination with the military departments, collect consistent information on private sector civilian wages and use this information to help inform investment decisions in the package of incentives to recruit and retain military physicians and dentists. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness: Defense Health Agency
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: We recommend the Secretary of the Air Force issue policy emphasizing the following three key reliability practices when planning and executing acquisition programs: (1) leveraging reliability engineers early and often, (2) establishing realistic reliability requirements, and (3) employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Air Force agreed with this recommendation and told us they will be updating Air Force Instruction AFI63-101/20-101 to ensure the inclusion of key practices to improve weapon system reliability, including leveraging reliability engineers early and often, establishing realistic reliability requirements, and employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. The Air Force said it plans to complete this effort by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: We recommend the Secretary of the Navy issue policy emphasizing the following three key reliability practices when planning and executing acquisition programs: (1) leveraging reliability engineers early and often, (2) establishing realistic reliability requirements, and (3) employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy agreed with this recommendation and told us they plan to address GAO's recommendation in two ways. First, they are developing a guidebook for program managers and leadership to emphasize the importance of leveraging reliability engineers early and often, establishing realistic reliability requirements, and employing reliability engineering activities to improve a system's design throughout development. The Navy anticipates the guidebook will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2021. Second, the Navy plans to update the SECNAV 5000.2 when it is open for changes. They noted, this is dependent on the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) completing its ongoing update to DOD-wide acquisition guidance. The Navy anticipates OSD's efforts will be completed by end of calendar year 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of DFAS should, in accordance with the FMR, implement procedures to help ensure that FBWT reconciliations are consistently performed and that all DFAS sites review and document research conducted on the causes of any differences arising from these reconciliations. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. They stated that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) will update the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) and implement procedures to help ensure Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT) reconciliations are performed consistently and appropriate research on the causes of any difference arising from these reconciliations is reviewed and documented by all DFAS sites. Further, DFAS will update internal documentation/policy to outline DFAS roles and processes for FBWT reconciliations as well as include guidance on the execution of DOD's FMR FBWT reconciliation requirements. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should update the FMR to clearly define the required supporting documentation for system-generated accounting adjustments, including the required documentation of business rules driving the recording of these adjustments, such as documentation of the programming logic. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. They stated that the Department is developing a checklist of required supporting documents for incorporation into the DOD Financial Management Regulations (FMR). They will update the DOD FMR Volume, 6A, Chapter 2 to define the required supporting documentation for system generated accounting adjustments. Additionally, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) will update internal documentation to include narratives outlining the business rules for system generated accounting adjustments with the required supporting documentation. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should perform and document a comprehensive review of the FMR accounting adjustment category codes to determine their ongoing applicability or the need for additional codes to reflect the current financial reporting environment. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department intends to collaborate with the financial community to update the category codes within the DOD Financial Management Regulations (FMR). Specifically, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense will perform a comprehensive review of Journal Voucher Category Codes listed in DOD FMR, Volume 6A, Chapter 2 and update regulations based on feedback. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service will update internal documentation and procedures to reflect any code changes identified in the revised DOD FMR. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is July 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should establish procedures to help ensure the consistent implementation of the requirements of DFAS Form 9339. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department plans to update the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Form 9339 and develop and conduct refresher training to all users of the Form 9339. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is September 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should update policies and procedures to identify the causes of out-of-balance accounting adjustments and resolve the causes in a timely manner. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department is collaborating on utilizing existing data to identify and resolve out-of-balances and update DOD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 6A, Chapter 2 to include a section conveying out-of-balance accounting adjustments are not authorized. Root cause analysis efforts will be performed in conjunction with corrective action plans (CAPs) for recommendations 6--8. The estimated completion date for this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in conjunction with the Director of DFAS, should develop and implement policies and procedures to help ensure that root cause analyses for accounting adjustments are consistently performed and documented across DOD. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department, in conjunction with the Director of Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), intends to utilize existing advanced analytics tools to research and document root cause analyses. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is December 2020. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in conjunction with the Director of DFAS, should develop and implement policies and procedures to help ensure consistent development, implementation, monitoring, and documentation of action plans across DOD that address accounting adjustment causes that staff identified internally. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department intends to collaborate with the financial community, including the Director of the Defense Financial and Accounting Service (DFAS), and utilize existing tools for documenting and implementing consistent procedures for action plans of accounting adjustments. The analytical tool, Advana will be used to analyze the action plan code for consistent analysis to be performed across the DOD. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is February 2021. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in conjunction with the Director of DFAS, should develop and implement procedures across DOD that include clearly defined outcomes focused on reducing accounting adjustments (supported and unsupported) with specific actionable steps and procedures for achieving stated goals. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. The Department, in conjunction with the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, plans to utilize existing tools to define and measure the outcomes of accounting adjustments. The estimated completion date for the implementation of this recommendation is April 2021. We will continue to follow-up on this recommendation.

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with ANG and AFR, should ensure that AFSOC has the organizational capacity to effectively initiate, coordinate, and execute ARC mobilizations, to include ensuring timely and reliable notification of requirements to those units. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the ANG and AFR develop a method for providing AFSOC with consolidated information regarding units available for immediate and future mobilizations to support special operations activities, such as the Air Force provides to its units with its force-generation model. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the ANG and AFR develop a mechanism for tracking volunteer deployments to better manage ARC force utilization. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen the Corps' internal review process for feasibility studies by including steps to ensure consistency with best practices for transparency, such as verifying that all of the important assumptions and limitations in models and their implications for the economic analysis are consistently, clearly, and fully described. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works)
Status: Open

Comments: In its letter dated January 14, 2020, the Department of Defense concurred with GAO's recommendation and provided a corrective action plan in response to the recommendation. According to the corrective action plan, the Corps estimates that guidance will be issued to ensure that Corps reports adequately describe and justify the models, analytical choices, assumptions, and data used such that it is consistent with best practices by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) include all costs—such as costs for program office activities, utilities, roads, environmental remediation, historical preservation, and alternative workspace—when developing its second, more detailed, cost estimate. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) use cost estimating best practices—as outlined in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide—in developing its second cost estimate, including a program baseline, work breakdown structure, a description of the methodology and key assumptions, inflation, fully addressing risk and uncertainty, and a sensitivity analysis. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555) obtain an independent cost estimate of the Naval Shipyards program prior to the start of its project prioritization effort. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the shipyard optimization program office (PMS 555), in coordination with relevant stakeholders, establish clear roles and responsibilities for the shipyards involved in the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a method to regularly collect feedback from SWOs across the fleet, such as in a survey, regarding the quality of their classroom, simulator, and at-sea training on Division Officer performance; and evaluates trends in the feedback received for the purpose of improving SWO training. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was considering a fleet-wide survey, timed for a later date when more Surface Warfare Officers have completed new training courses and implemented their training. In addition, the Navy listed other means it employs to collect feedback, such as student surveys at the end of training courses, leadership visits and conferences, and Commanding Officer updates. Our emphasis on collection of fleet-wide feedback from all Surface Warfare Officers and trend analysis remains critical to help the Navy understand the value of its training programs at various career stages and in the diverse operating environments across the fleet.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, routinely conduct regular Officer of the Deck competency assessments using samples of sufficient size and using selection methods to gauge the level of fleet-wide ship-driving proficiency trends following the implementation of the planned ship-driving training programs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023, noting that it was conducting the planned fleet-wide Officer of the Deck competency checks in 2020, and that it intends to use a system of ten career milestone assessments for future performance measurement. The Navy stated that it may or may not hold subsequent rounds of the Officer of the Deck competency assessments depending on performance indicated in other career milestone assessments. In our report we identified the importance of continuing the current Officer of the Deck competency assessments through at least 2024 because that is when new officers that complete the full set of new initial ship-driving training courses will be eligible for assessment. The Navy used the Officer of the Deck competency assessments in 2018 to establish a performance baseline, and we believe that the Navy should apply the same standard to measure performance changes for Surface Warfare Officers that complete new training courses moving forward.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporates these criteria into surface fleet guidance. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. However, in its official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence, the Navy indicated that its existing policies already meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, the Navy stated that its Officer of the Deck Underway Personnel Qualification Standards provide standard evaluation criteria for Officer of the Deck qualification. In our report, we noted that while the Personnel Qualification Standards provide a common list of required experiences, they do not provide a common understanding of proficiency in completing these experiences. Instead, proficiency determination is left to the discretion of the ship's Commanding Officer, which has led to wide variation in ship-driving proficiency across the fleet. Therefore, we continue to believe that the Navy should provide Commanding Officers with standard criteria to inform their evaluation of candidates for their Officer of the Deck qualification and incorporate these criteria into surface fleet guidance.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Secretary of the Navy ensure that the Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in coordination with Surface Warfare Officers School Command, develop a plan to analyze and use Mariner Skills Logbook information to inform decision-making. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In March 2020, the Navy provided an estimated implementation date of March 2023. In official comments on the report and in subsequent correspondence the Navy stated that its Surface Warfare Career Manual establishes guidance for the implementation and use of the Mariner Skills Logbook, and that the logbook will contribute information to allow proficiency trend analysis over time. However, while the Surface Warfare Career Manual identifies the offices responsible for logbook activities, it does not include a specific plan for the use of logbook data to analyze proficiency trends over time or to benefit individual officers. Our emphasis that the Navy develop a plan to analyze and use Surface Warfare Mariner Skills Logbook data to aid decision-making remains valid, and when implemented should assist the Navy in determining the relationship between SWO experience and ship-driving proficiency.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should update Army manpower guidance, or other guidance as appropriate, to ensure that all missions conducted by EOD forces, including DSCA missions, are considered in determining the required number of EOD forces. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Army has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should update Air Force manpower guidance, or other guidance as appropriate, to ensure that all missions conducted by EOD forces, including DSCA missions, are considered in determining the required number of EOD forces. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Air Force has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should update Navy and Marine Corps manpower guidance, or other guidance as appropriate, to ensure that all missions conducted by EOD forces, including DSCA missions, are considered in determining the required number of EOD forces. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of the Navy has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in collaboration with the combatant commands, incorporate into the appropriate guidance a requirement that the military services notify the Joint Staff and the affected combatant commands when the execution of VIP support missions negatively affects the preparedness of EOD units for combat-related missions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 15, 2020, the Department of Defense has neither concurred nor non-concurred with this recommendation.

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 evaluate the results of its financial literacy training assessments to determine where gaps in servicemembers' financial knowledge exist and revise future trainings to address these gaps. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The agency stated that in 2017 it added questions to its annual Status of Forces Survey to assess the military population's understanding of basic financial concepts. While these survey results will allow DOD to respond to identified gaps in servicemembers' financial literacy, Status of Forces survey results have taken years to compile in the past. Assessing servicemembers' financial literacy as part of mandatory trainings will allow DOD to more promptly identify gaps in servicemembers' knowledge and adjust trainings to address those gaps.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should provide servicemembers disclosures that explain key pieces of information about the lump-sum payment, including some measure of its relative value, the potential positive and negative financial ramifications of choosing the lump-sum payment option, and a description of how it was calculated. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that it has developed a training course, published information to help educate servicemembers on the BRS's lump-sum option, and included a lump-sum section in its BRS calculator. These efforts to develop various tools for educating servicemembers on the BRS's lump-sum option are encouraging, however, we identified additional information that is important to include in lump sum disclosures in the report.

Recommendation: The Executive Director of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board should work with the Secretary of Defense to explore alternative options (including online resources) for servicemembers to receive their initial Thrift Savings Plan password so that servicemembers can access and manage their online accounts without added delays. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board: Office of the Executive Director
Status: Open

Comments: FRTIB agreed with this recommendation and said they will continue to explore avenues to address how servicemembers receive their initial TSP password while continuing to emphasize the need for security.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence requires that DOD components (including the military departments and the Defense Logistics Agency) monitor the use of PACS at their installations. (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 ensure that the Office of Provost Marshal General monitors the use of PACS at Army installations. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commander, Navy Installations Command, monitors the use of PACS at Navy installations. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, should ensure that the Commander, Marine Corps Installations Command, monitors the use of PACS at Marine Corps installations. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness develops appropriate performance measures and associated goals for the timely resolution of the Defense Biometric Identification System technical issues to facilitate improved PACS performance. (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 Army should ensure that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 assess the risk associated with staffing, equipping, and training of new units that it plans to activate in an accelerated manner for the purposes of conducting multi-domain operations, taking into consideration the assessments performed on the first activated ICEWS battalion and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. In its February 2020 corrective action plan, the Army indicated that it will conduct a FIFA or similar risk assessment in accordance with its policy and procedures before activating any new units for MDO employment. The Army has indicated that it plans to create additional units in support of multi-domain operations in coming years, so we will continue to monitor.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to establish processes to ensure that information on the provision of Section 333 mandated human rights training is systematically and accurately entered into its tracking systems. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, DOD agreed with the recommendation and stated that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency needs to establish reporting procedures with geographic combatant commands and is working to determine the feasibility and requirements to modify existing systems to enable tracking of mandated human rights training. As of July 2020, DSCA was considering options for such changes.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to develop a timeline for implementing its activities to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of human rights training for foreign security forces. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, DOD concurred with the recommendation and said it would monitor and evaluate human rights training as part of monitoring and evaluating its broader security assistance efforts. As of July 2020, DOD was considering how it would implement these changes.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, should develop a plan with a clear timeline for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of human rights training for foreign security forces provided under International Military Education and Training. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, State wrote that it did not agree to separately conduct monitoring and evaluation of human rights training provided under the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. GAO's recommendation does not call for a separate evaluation. State could meet the intent of the recommendation through evaluating the effectiveness of human rights training as part of its broader efforts to monitor and evaluate IMET. As of June 2020, State indicated they had no plans to evaluate the effectiveness of human rights training related to IMET.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) develop and adopt a depot maintenance carryover metric that provides reliable, complete, consistent, and appropriate information. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the recommendation. Specifically, DOD stated that the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) and the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) will coordinate with the Military Departments to promulgate regulations implementing GAO's recommendation, and collaborate to develop a new budgetary exhibit to coincide with the Fiscal Year 2022 budget estimate submission. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Commanding General of Army Futures Command, in coordination with relevant Army entities, to establish command-wide performance measures and develop a plan to use these measures to systematically assess the effectiveness of small business engagement in support of research and development. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In fiscal year 2020, AFC developed both short-term and long-term performance measures to capture and monitor information on small business engagements across the command, but are still developing a database to systematically track the progression of engagements and outcomes. Officials expect to establish a database by fiscal year 2021.

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 DHA to ensure that MTFs' referral management center staff are trained to process and accurately document information in MHS Genesis about specialty care referrals, including the receipt of CLRs, the submission of referral results, and the closure of referrals. (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 direct DHA to ensure that MHS Genesis is configured to produce reports that accurately reflect the use and outcomes of specialty care referrals. (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 issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into installation master planning, including—at a minimum—what sources of climate projections to use, how to use projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it is in the process of developing guidance to incorporate projections for sea level change into DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria standard for installation master planning, using a DOD-vetted source of data. DOD also stated that it will continue to tailor additional sources of climate projections data to other planning requirements and integrate these into departmental criteria as appropriate. In February 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum with guidance on incorporating sea level change projections in installation master planning, and as of April 2020, was researching additional sources of climate projection data to tailor to other planning requirements. DOD estimated that it would complete implementation of this recommendation in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into facilities project designs, including—at a minimum—what sources of climate projections to use, how to use projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it is in the process of developing guidance to incorporate projections for sea level change into Unified Facilities Criteria for facilities design, using a DOD-vetted source of data. DOD also stated that it will continue to tailor additional sources of climate projections data to other engineering requirements and integrate these projections into its criteria as appropriate. In February 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum with guidance on incorporating sea level change projections into facilities designs, and as of April 2020, was researching additional sources of climate projection data to tailor to other planning requirements. DOD estimated that it would complete implementation of this recommendation in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment; the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command; and the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment; the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the KC-46 program office disseminates insights we identified in this report about the KC-46's contracting and sustainment planning experiences for consideration by acquisition programs, in particular those considering a fixed-price-type development contract or a commercial derivative aircraft.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and, as of the summer 2020, has drafted a report that is with the Secretary of the Air Force for review prior to issuance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Director, Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to conduct an independent schedule assessment of the full program schedule for the Global Positioning System's next generation operational control system based on progress made through the end of calendar year 2019. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to conduct an independent assessment of the full OCX program schedule based on progress made through the end of calendar year 2019, citing an independent cost and schedule estimate conducted in September 2018 and other ongoing program assessment and monitoring efforts. GAO continues to affirm that the recommendation is necessary given that DOD has not conducted an assessment of the full schedule since June 2018, since which time program risks have evolved. Additionally, ongoing oversight efforts are limited in scope and do not include the developmental test period after product delivery. As of August 2020, the Air Force position remains a non-concur, based on the same rationale previously noted.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict updates existing guidance or develops new guidance to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for SO/LIC and relationships with DOD components that have vested interests in the SOF enterprise—such as the military services, SOCOM, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with GAO's May 2019 recommendation that ASD-SO/LIC update existing guidance or develop new guidance to clarify the roles and responsibilities of ASD-SO/LIC and relationships with DOD components that have vested interests in the SOF enterprise-such as the military services and SOCOM to name a few. In September 2020, ASD-SO/LIC officials stated that DOD is in the process of revising guidance that would help clarify ASD- SO/LIC's roles and responsibilities. DOD estimated that this will not be completed until January 2025.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that Army Materiel Command establishes measures for its depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (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 ensure that Army Materiel Command implements tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Army depot. (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 Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command and the Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers establish measures for their depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (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 ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command and the Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers implement tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Navy depot. (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 Air Force should ensure that Air Force Materiel Command establishes measures for its depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (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 ensure that Air Force Materiel Command implements tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Air Force depot. (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 Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Logistics Command establishes measures for its depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (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 Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Logistics Command implements tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Marine Corp depot. (Recommendation 8)

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 ensure that Army Materiel Command incorporates in its depot optimization plan, key results-oriented elements including analytically-based goals, results-oriented metrics, identification of required resources, risks, and stakeholders, and regular reporting to decision makers on progress. (Recommendation 9)

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 ensure that Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers incorporates in its depot optimization plan, key results-oriented elements including analytically-based goals, results-oriented metrics, identification of required resources, risks, and stakeholders, and regular reporting to decision makers on progress. (Recommendation 10)

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 ensure that Air Force Materiel Command incorporates in its depot optimization plan, key results-oriented elements including analytically-based goals, results-oriented metrics, identification of required resources, risks, and stakeholders, and regular reporting to decision makers on progress. (Recommendation 11)

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 Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Logistics Command incorporates in its depot optimization plan, key results-oriented elements including analytically-based goals, results-oriented metrics, identification of required resources, risks, and stakeholders, and regular reporting to decision makers on progress. (Recommendation 12)

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 Sustainment develops an approach for managing service depot investments that includes management monitoring and regular reporting to decision makers and Congress on progress. (Recommendation 13)

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, together with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, conducts a comprehensive review of the F-35 supply chain to determine what additional actions are needed to close the gap between warfighter requirements for aircraft performance and the capabilities that the F-35 supply chain can deliver, in light of the U.S. services' affordability constraints. Potential actions could include adjustments to the quantities of parts DOD is planning to procure, or developing a mechanism for providing increased availability of parts to operational units, as a means to mitigate fleet-wide shortages. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD stated that it is addressing the recommendation by completing the supply-chain related actions in its January 2019 Life Cycle Logistics Plan, which involved a comprehensive review of warfighter gaps and the detailed Program of Actions and Milestones required to close them. DOD also cited specific actions to increase the availability of parts, such as increasing funding for parts and allocating more parts to combat-coded units to enable them to meet the 80 percent mission capability goal. DOD's Plan of Action for the supply chain is in continuous development and GAO has not yet been provided with detailed documentation of these planning efforts and associated actions. We will continue to monitor DOD's ongoing planning efforts in this area.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, together with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, develops a process to modify the afloat and deployment spares packages, to include reviewing the parts within the packages to ensure that they match deploying aircraft and account for updated parts demand, and aligning any necessary funding needed for the parts updates. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD stated that it has developed a process for managing the configurations of the parts within the afloat and deployment spares packages, which has been approved by the F-35 Product Support Manager. According to DOD, it has established a working group to codify the details of the process and is working to correct the part configurations of already-delivered spares packages. These efforts are part of a broader ongoing DOD effort to execute a F-35 Configuration Management Plan for the global spares pool, which includes identifying all of the parts that may require an upgrade. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in these areas.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, together with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, completes a detailed plan for the establishment of the global network for moving F-35 parts that outlines clear requirements and milestones to reach full operational capability, and that includes mechanisms to identify and mitigate risks to the F-35 global spares pool. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD stated that its draft program instruction for the establishment of the global network for moving parts is being coordinated with stakeholders. We will review the instruction when it is finalized and continue to monitor DOD's efforts to complete a detailed plan for the global network.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, together with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, issues a policy consistent with DOD guidance that clearly establishes how DOD will maintain accountability for F-35 parts within the supply chain, and identify the steps needed to implement the policy retrospectively and prospectively—for example, how DOD will obtain the necessary data from the contractor. This policy should provide clarity on how F-35 parts will be categorized, specify how the program will implement DOD regulations, and define prime contractor roles and responsibilities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD stated that it is developing guidance to address this recommendation. Specifically, it has developed a draft directive that is currently in coordination with stakeholders and it plans to develop a subsequent program instruction. We will review this guidance when it is completed and continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, together with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops a methodical approach to consistently obtain comprehensive cost information from the prime contractor for F-35 spare parts within the supply chain. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD stated that the Joint Strike Fighter affordability strategy addresses price verification as a goal and DOD is in the process of implementing a price verification program, which will include verification for the prices of parts. Additionally the F-35 program office has developed a framework for the contractor to provide all data associated with supply chain assets to include cost and pricing. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to obtain comprehensive cost information for all F-35 parts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, together with the Department of Defense Comptroller, the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy, and the F-35 Program Executive Officer, completes and formalizes a methodology for the U.S. services to use in recording on their financial statements the funds spent on F-35 parts within the global spares pool. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD stated that the Department of Defense Comptroller, with collaboration from the Services and the F-35 Program developed the Transfer of Pooled Assets Methodology as a candidate accounting construct under which the F-35 Program would become the single financial reporting entity for F-35 pooled assets, thus removing the need to allocate "shares" of the pool to the Services and participants. Prior to endorsement and implementation of this methodology, the Department of Defense Comptroller is assessing whether the Department of Navy or the U.S. Air Force would provide more streamlined financial accountability of the F-35 spare parts in the global spares pool. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, together with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, clearly defines the strategy by which DOD will manage the F-35 supply chain in the future and update key strategy documents accordingly, to include any additional actions and investments necessary to support that strategy. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD had not taken steps to address this recommendation. To implement this recommendation, DOD needs to clearly define the strategy by which DOD will manage the F-35 supply chain in the future and update key strategy documents accordingly. This should include determining the roles of both the prime contractor and DOD in managing the supply chain, and the investments in technical data needed to support DOD-led management.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Deputy Commandant for the Office of Programs and Resources oversee development and implementation of an approach to enable tracking of unit-level training funds through the budget cycle. This approach should include aligning MCPCs across the Marine Corps and ensuring consistent use of SIC codes. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps has in process a Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative that it expects to provide visibility and traceability throughout the budget cycle, to include enabling the tracking of unit-level training funds throughout the budget cycle. DOD expects to complete implementation by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps designates a single entity responsible for directing, overseeing, and coordinating efforts to achieve the objective of establishing an enterprise-wide performance management process that links resources to readiness. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway through its Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) reform initiative. The initiative is expected to result in the addition of an "Assessment" phase to the PPBE process, which will be known as "PPBEA." The new phase is expected to include a system that incorporates campaign planning against traceability of funding, among other factors, and will be documented in a new Marine Corps Order to replace existing PPBE guidance. The Marine Corps expects to complete this process by the end of fiscal year 2025. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps assesses C2RAM to determine the extent to which this system, or elements of this system, should be adapted for use in an enterprise-wide performance management process linking resources to readiness. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of August 2020, the Navy has informed GAO that efforts to address this recommendation are underway. The Marine Corps' Programs and Resources Department is supporting the transition of the Cost to Run a MEF (C2RAM) from a stand-alone database to a web-enabled platform within the Marine Corps Training Information Management System (MCTIMS) program. The Marine Corps expects this platform to provide the ability to track ground unit-level training costs as they pertain to readiness goals and provide data to more effectively assess readiness investments for subsequent budget cycles. The Marine Corps expects the platform to attain initial operational capability for data input and data management by the end of fiscal year 2020, and to support analytics reporting and predictive resourcing functions by the end of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor actions taken related to this recommendation and provide updates as appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD (Policy)), the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation—in consultation with the services—determine the analytic products needed and the level of detail that is sufficient to serve as a common starting point but flexible to allow for variation of analysis to support senior leader decisions, and update these products to reflect current strategy and intelligence estimates, as well as the anticipated operational approaches needed to address future threats. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and, as of January 2020, has taken some steps to address it. Specifically, in May 2019, DOD sent a follow up letter to our final report that said that the Department's position on the report has not substantially changed and that the actions identified in the Department's initial response remain underway. DOD also noted that the FY 2021-2025 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) signed in April 2019 directly addresses many of the report's recommendations and that the Joint Staff is leading an aggressive effort on joint force innovation and experimentation, with Tri-Chair oversight. In September 2019, we reviewed the DPG and found that it partially addressed our recommendation. In the DPG, DOD identified analytic products that would serve as the department's starting point for analysis in fiscal years 2021-2025. DOD has also begun developing some of these analytic products, including several defense planning scenarios that it developed in December 2018 to reflect some of the threats outlined in the National Defense Strategy. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD will need to develop the additional products it needs for the remaining key threats identified in the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, keeping these products updated will require sustained attention by the department, but the direction provided by DOD was limited to budget guidance for fiscal years 2021-2025. The direction would more closely adhere to the intent of our recommendation if it were provided in an enduring guidance or policy document. We will continue to monitor DOD actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that OUSD (Policy) provide specific guidance requiring the services to explore a range of innovative force structure approaches relevant to the key threats identified in the National Defense Strategy, including identifying key assumptions on which the services must conduct sensitivity analyses. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and, as of January 2020, has taken some steps to address it. Specifically, in May 2019, DOD sent a follow up letter to our final report that said that the Department's position on the report has not substantially changed and that the actions identified in the Department's initial response remain underway. DOD also noted that the FY 2021-2025 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) signed in April 2019 directly addresses many of the report's recommendations and that the Joint Staff is leading an aggressive effort on joint force innovation and experimentation, with Tri-Chair oversight. In September 2019, we reviewed the DPG and found that it directed some actions relevant to our recommendation regarding the need to explore a range of innovative force structure approaches. However, it did not directly address the need to require the services to conduct sensitivity analysis on key assumptions. The defense planning scenarios that DOD developed in December 2018 identify critical parameters for analytical exploration and encourage DOD components to conduct excursions and sensitivity analysis of assumptions, which we found has not been sufficient to spur this type of analysis in the past. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD needs to require the services to conduct this analysis. We will continue to monitor DOD actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should establish an approach for comparing competing analyses and conducting joint analyses for force structure to support senior leaders as they seek to implement the National Defense Strategy. This could include establishing a separate body with these capabilities and/or specifying the organizational responsibilities and processes for conducting these comparisons and analyses. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and, as of January 2020, has taken some steps to address it. Specifically, in May 2019, DOD sent a follow up letter to our final report that said that the Department's position on the report has not substantially changed and that the actions identified in the Department's initial response remain underway. DOD also noted that the FY 2021-2025 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) signed in April 2019 directly addresses many of the report's recommendations and that the Joint Staff is leading an aggressive effort on joint force innovation and experimentation, with Tri-Chair oversight. In September 2019, we reviewed the DPG and found that it included steps that could lay the groundwork for DOD to compare competing analyses and conduct joint force structure analyses. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD needs to establish an approach for doing so, which could include establishing a body or process for conducting comparisons or joint analyses. We will continue to monitor DOE actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the military services and other DOD components to identify the universe of space acquisition programs, as well as the various organizations that support these programs, and report this information to Congress. In doing so, DOD should implement procedures to maintain and periodically update the list. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its written response, which is included in our report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provided in August 2020, DOD states that this recommendation is no longer applicable due to the establishment of the U.S. Space Force on December 20, 2019. All space acquisition programs previously in the Air Force were transferred to the Space Force upon stand up and funding followed with the FY21 President's Budget submission. DOD also states in the CAP that the transfer of the other military services' and defense agencies' space acquisition programs and funding to the Space Force is currently in process. Once the other organizations' space acquisition programs are fully transferred to the U.S. Space Command, we will consider whether the recommendation should be closed.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in conjunction with the Under Secretaries of Defense for Research and Development and for Personnel and Readiness, should collect and maintain data on acquisition-coded military and civilian personnel that support space acquisition programs and related activities—including those that may do so less than full time—as well as track the contractor and Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) workforce general levels of effort supporting space acquisition programs and related activities and the total resources annually committed to perform that work. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD has not taken action to implement this recommendation. As discussed in our report, DOD did not concur with this recommendation. DOD stated that the manner in which personnel data are captured in its human resource and development systems makes it difficult to identify, collect, and maintain data on the military and civilian personnel working on space acquisition programs. Further, DOD raised concerns over contractual limitations on collecting and maintaining data on contractor and FFRDC personnel supporting space acquisitions. We continue to believe that collecting and maintaining more robust data on the space acquisition workforce will support DOD's planning efforts for establishing new space organizations and better inform Congress. In our report, we point out that DOD could make minor modifications to its personnel data system to facilitate identifying and routinely tracking accurate information on the military and civilian segments of the space acquisition workforce. Further, collecting information on the general levels of contractor and FFRDC effort supporting space acquisition activities and the resources spent to obtain this assistance, could be useful in helping DOD determine the right number and mix of military and civilian personnel needed in the new space organizations. In its Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provided in August 2020, DOD states that it has determined that due to the fluidity of support provided by individual workforce members to specific programs, it is not feasible to collect data attributing individual support to specific space acquisition programs. In the CAP, DOD also states that since the U.S. Space Force has been established, DOD has a limited ability to produce data on the organic space acquisition workforce comprised of former USAF units, and DOD will determine the best format and means of reporting this data. DOD further states that once the space acquisition programs from other military services and Defense Agencies are transferred to the Space Force, it will need to determine how best to integrate acquisition workforce data from the newly assigned agencies and units. Once that is determined, DOD will attempt to provide an aggregate report of available space acquisition workforce data to the Congress. Once the other organizations' space acquisition programs are fully transferred to the U.S. Space Command and are included under its reporting, we will consider whether to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The DOD Inspector General should coordinate with the IGs of the military services to take additional actions to improve performance against unmet timeliness goals. This includes steps to improve performance of senior official misconduct investigations and military service reprisal intakes, and to resolve disagreement on notifications. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and in December 2019 reported to the Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the DOD and military service Inspectors General had convened a working group to coordinate performance improvement on unmet timeliness goals. According to the IG, the working group's recommendations are being incorporated into uniform standards for reprisal investigations that are expected to be finalized in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Air Force Inspector General should establish procedures to fully reflect and implement DOD policy on the protection of whistleblower confidentiality. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Officer of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Air Force Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Marine Corps Inspector General should establish procedures to fully reflect and implement DOD policy on the protection of whistleblower confidentiality. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Marine Corps Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Marine Corps Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Naval Inspector General should establish procedures to fully reflect and implement DOD policy on the protection of whistleblower confidentiality. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Naval Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Naval Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The DOD Inspector General should consider interim actions as the whistleblower enterprise case management system is being developed to help ensure that access to sensitive whistleblower information in the current case management system and associated document repository is limited to information that is necessary to accomplish assigned tasks. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The DOD Inspector General should coordinate with the IGs of the military services to develop a plan to fully restrict case access in the future whistleblower enterprise case management system so that user access is limited to information necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and in December 2019 reported to the Chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees that the future whistleblower case management system would incorporate design limits providing for access to information only by personnel necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. According to the IG, the system is scheduled to deploy in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The DOD Inspector General should enhance its process for periodically reviewing whistleblower case management system and document repository user privileges by including steps to ensure that such privileges remain valid after system updates, as appropriate. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The DOD Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that the DOD Office of Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Air Force Inspector General should consider interim actions as the whistleblower enterprise case management system is being developed to help ensure that access for users of existing applications is limited to information that is necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and stated in December 2019 that an update scheduled for the end of April 2020 would enhance access control measures in its existing applications. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Army Inspector General should consider interim actions as the whistleblower enterprise case management system is being developed to help ensure that access for users of existing applications is limited to information that is necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Army Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Army Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Marine Corps Inspector General should develop a plan to ensure that its redesigned whistleblower case management application restricts user access to information based on what is needed to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Marine Corps Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Marine Corps Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Naval Inspector General should consider interim actions as the whistleblower enterprise case management system is being developed to help ensure that access for users of existing applications is limited to information that is necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Naval Inspector General concurred with this recommendation, and the DOD Office of Inspector General stated in December 2019 that the Naval Inspector General was in the process of implementing it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm what actions the department has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Army, in coordination with CYBERCOM and the National Cryptologic School, where appropriate, establish a time frame to validate all of the phase two foundational training courses for which it is responsible. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Army is performing a validation pilot for its Cyberspace Operations Planners Course. After that validation pilot is complete, the Army will establish a time frame for validating its other courses.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Air Force, in coordination with CYBERCOM and the National Cryptologic School, where appropriate, establish a time frame to validate all of the phase two foundational training courses for which it is responsible. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Air Force is coordinating with U.S. Cyber Command to obtain a final determination on the validated knowledge, skills, and abilities; proficiency standards, and skills for the various work roles supported by this training. The Air Force is responsible for developing curriculum for seven of the Cyber Mission Force workroles. DOD estimates that it will take 2 to 4 years to complete validation for all of the courses supporting these workroles.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that Army Cyber Command coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases two (foundational), three (collective), and four (sustainment), in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Army's CMF teams. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: 3. DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Army's implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon U.S. Cyber Command establishing master training task lists for phases 2 and 3 of the training. The Army estimates it will complete all required actions to validate phase 2 of its Cyber Mission Force training requirements by June 2020, phase 3 by October 2020, and phase 4 by January 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Fleet Cyber Command coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases three (collective) and four (sustainment) in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Navy's CMF teams. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Navy plans to identify the specific training requirements for phase 3 Cyber Mission Force training by October 31, 2020. Additionally, the Navy reported that it published a policy memorandum establishing a 24-month continuous training and certification cycle for its Cyber Mission Force Teams to address its phase 4 training requirements.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that Air Forces Cyber coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases two (foundational), three (collective), and four (sustainment), in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Air Force's CMF teams. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Air Force's phase 2 training plan is contingent upon the completion of U.S. Cyber Command validating the tasks, knowledge, skills, abilities, and proficiency levels that establish the training baseline. Those products are still in coordination and are not finalized. The Air Force did not provide timeframes by which it would be able to develop training plans for its phase 2, 3, and 4 training requirements.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace coordinate with CYBERCOM to develop a plan that comprehensively assesses and identifies specific CMF training requirements for phases two (foundational), three (collective), and four (sustainment), in order to maintain the appropriate sizing and deployment of personnel across the Marine Corps' CMF teams. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, the Marine Corps is still developing its response to comprehensively assess and identify Cyber Mission Force training requirements for phases two , three, and four.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the commander of CYBERCOM develops and documents a plan for establishing independent assessors to evaluate CMF phase three collective training certification events. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, U.S. Cyber Command established procedures for assessing teams participating in Joint Exercise Program collective training events. These procedures include the use of highly skilled and independent assessors from deployable training teams and other units to conduct standard assessments using U.S. Cyber Command criteria. DOD reports that the command has captured lessons learned from these procedures and will promulgate a command-wide instruction to further standardize assessments across the force and guide the development of automated assessments conducted with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment. DOD further reports that the procedures described above were first used in the CYBERFLAG 19-1 exercise in June 2019. We are in the process of obtaining documentation from that exercise to verify these procedures.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the commander of CYBERCOM establishes and disseminates the master training task lists covered by each phase two foundational training course and convey them to the military services, in accordance with the CMF Training Transition Plan. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with our recommendation. According to a DOD status report on implementing the recommendations for GAO-19-362 that was provided to us in February 2020, U.S. Cyber Command will complete this task in September 2020. DOD reports that U.S. Cyber Command has established and made individual training standards available through the Joint Cyber Training and Certification Standards to all services prior to the training transition in October 2018. In October 2019, DOD approved a new organizational structure and new Mission Essential Tasks for Cyber Protection Teams. The training standards were updated and provided to the services, who are using them to validate and develop Joint Curriculum. DOD is currently reviewing a U.S. Cyber Command proposal for the organization and mission essential tasks for Cyber Mission Teams and Cyber Support Teams. Pending DOD approval, U.S. Cyber Command will update and publish revisions to the individual training standards.

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should review its management oversight process that provides information and documents the justifications of the Air Force's non-operational staff positions requiring aviator expertise, including RPA positions, to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness and take any necessary actions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: In S. Rpt. 116-48 accompanying the FY 2019 NDAA, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) directed the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a mechanism to review the justifications for non-operational staff positions requiring pilot expertise at regular intervals and to report to the committee by September 30 2020, on the mechanism to be established to accomplish these periodic reviews. The Secretary's review and report shall include evaluation of the mix of positions requiring pilot expertise as well as the mix of operational positions and support positions required to support operations. Because the SASC has directed further action related to the Air Force's ability to review the justifications of its non-operational staff positions which require pilot expertise and that action is not directed to be completed until the end of fiscal year 2020, this recommendation should remain open pending any actions taken by the Air Force.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issue a more detailed implementation plan or include implementation plan details in identified formal department-wide guidance to include a description of the resources (i.e., relevant operational and financial information) required to implement the plan including dollar and personnel amounts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan. However, the updated plan did not include a description of the resources-- including dollar and personnel amounts--required to implement the plan. Instead, the updated plan states that no additional personnel or resources will be required to execute and manage the plan, and that those personnel executing and managing the plan are expected to do so in addition to their normal duties. In May 2020, DOD stated it intends to include additional information about the required resources in the plan's next revision. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the next iteration of the plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, take steps to fully implement joint oversight of DODs prepositioned stock programs, including providing detailed information on how to implement such an oversight approach in department guidance and reviewing other joint oversight efforts, in order to synchronize the military services' preposition stock strategies to avoid fragmentation. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. On February 25, 2020, DOD issued its revised Pre-Positioned War Reserve Materiel Strategic Implementation Plan which lays out a method for joint oversight. While GAO is encouraged and will monitor DOD's implementation efforts, it is too soon to determine the extent to which these efforts-when completed-will address DOD's fragmented management of its prepositioned stock programs. To fully address this recommendation, DOD needs to fully implement the joint oversight method outlined in the plan.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command applies leading practices as they relate to technology development, particularly that of demonstrating technology in an operational environment prior to starting system development. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. Army officials acknowledged the importance of demonstrating technology in an operation environment prior to starting system development and stated that they have taken steps to assist in the identification and removal of infeasible or immature technologies. For example, development of the Integrated Visual Augmentation System includes a series of user engagements where soldiers interact with the system in a field environment and provide feedback to guide development and design. To fully implement this recommendation the Army will need to demonstrate that all of the technologies it is developing are matured in accordance with leading practices. Including soldier engagement in the development of the Integrated Visual Augmentation System is a positive step in that it uses operational experience to determine the utility of technologies on the battlefield. However, demonstrating that those technologies function as expected in an operational environment is equally important. Our past work has shown that demonstrations in an operational environment reduce the risk that technologies will not operate as intended or desired. It is important that the Army continue and expand its efforts to eliminate infeasible, or immature technologies across all of its development programs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command takes steps to incorporate the experiences of the cross-functional teams in applying leading practices for effective cross-functional teams. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. According to Army officials, cross-functional teams routinely meet to discuss both successes and challenges. Additionally, senior Army leadership hosts weekly meetings with cross-functional teams to discuss decision points and concerns. Army Futures Command plans to include leadership from all cross-functional teams at future meetings to enhance knowledge sharing and ensure leadership viewpoints are communicated across the enterprise. These actions do incorporate elements of leading practices for cross-functional teams such as open and regular communication and senior management support. To fully implement this recommendation the Army should continue and expand this knowledge sharing as planned as well as ensure other elements of leading practices for effective cross-functional teams are implemented. These include the establishment of well-defined team operations with project-specific rules and procedures as well as appropriate training and learning environments for all cross-functional team members.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command executes a process for identifying and incorporating lessons learned from cross-functional team pilots into the new command. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. According to Army officials an analyst from the Center for Army Lessons Learned has embedded a permanent analyst at Army Futures Command who is capturing lessons learned and best practices from across the cross-functional teams. The results of this analysis are provided across Army Futures Command and to other stakeholders. Additionally, Army Futures Command has established the Directorate of Systems Integration to act as a repository and action office for lessons learned. This office hosts recurring coordination events to further the communication of lessons learned .

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command fully applies leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations as roles, responsibilities, policies and procedures are finalized for the new command. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. According to Army officials Army Futures Command is applying leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations as it continues to establish the command. These practices include total employee involvement in the transformation process with senior leadership championing the overarching transformation. In addition, the command has worked to identify processes that need improvement as it incorporates the organizations transferred from other commands. It also continues to evolve its staff and functions as needs are identified. According to officials, Army Futures Command continues to select high-performing team members to guide its transformation through selective recruitment and talent management as well as augmenting its growing staff with other Army personnel selected for temporary assignments. The command is also involving employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the transformation by encouraging them to share their thoughts and ideas. Importantly, according to officials, the command recognizes the need to have an enduring change model to consistently reassess and reorganize the command to consistently deliver products in relevant timeframes. These actions do demonstrate elements of leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations. However, to fully implement this recommendation, Army Futures Command should formalize and institutionalize its authorities, responsibilities, policies and procedures as they relate to these leading practices, especially as leadership within the command and the Army change.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy updates its policy and instruction on providing support to the Secret Service to define the requirements for producing semiannual reports of expenditures required by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended. These requirements should, at a minimum, include (1) the steps and time frames for completing updates to the policy and instruction, (2) time frames for reporting the expenditures, and (3) an oversight mechanism to ensure that the Department of Defense consistently submits these reports to specified congressional committees. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 31, 2019, DOD has not updated its policy or instruction.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy defines the steps, including time frames, necessary to achieve near term reporting requirements under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, and submit the reports as required. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 31, 2019, DOD has not updated its policy.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau take steps to ensure it issues a manual to accompany Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A, National Guard Counterdrug Support, by June 2019. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the National Guard Bureau had begun updating Chief of the National Guard Bureau Instruction 3100.01A to comply with the most recent published Secretary of Defense guidance and that they planned to expedite the issuance of the accompanying manual. In August 2020, DOD provided GAO with a draft of the manual; however, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats noted that the manual was still being reviewed within DOD and expected that it would be finalized by the end of December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats, in coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, assess the revised process for reviewing states' plans for their counterdrug activities, and take actions based on the assessment to ensure the plans are approved by the Secretary of Defense before funding is provided to state counterdrug programs, as statutorily required. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats would continue to work with the National Guard Bureau to improve the State Plans review process for fiscal year 2020 and beyond. DOD's response noted that State Plans Guidance will reiterate that, in accordance with statute, funding may not be provided for a State's counterdrug program until the Secretary of Defense has approved its plan. In September 2019, DOD officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats provided information showing improvements in the timing of the review process for approval of the State Plans, but noted more needed to be done in order to ensure all State Plans were approved by the Secretary of Defense prior to funding being provided to State counterdrug programs. In January 2020, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats stated they were continuing to monitor the updated process for fiscal year 2021 and hoped for further improvements.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau incorporate the strategic counternarcotics priorities, to be outlined in DOD's counternarcotics and global threats strategic framework, into the National Guard Bureau's funding distribution process. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats would work with the National Guard Bureau to support its efforts to incorporate and align DOD strategic priorities into its planning and resource allocation processes. In February 2020, DOD documents noted that this recommendation was assigned to the Counterdrug Advisory Counsel and Threat Based Resourcing Model Target Team for action and estimated a December 2020 completion date.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements that clearly define how and where project management lessons learned for capital asset projects should be documented and saved to make them readily accessible across the department. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to identify the project management lessons learned and outline the kinds of information the repository will collect. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for sharing project management lessons learned for capital asset projects from the beginning of a project (i.e., prior to the start of construction at CD-3) routinely and in a timely manner to improve DOE's ability to identify and evaluate problematic practices and positive experiences. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to have those conducting peer reviews elicit project management lessons learned with department-wide applicability and submit any discerned, as well as replace the order's definition of project management lessons learned with a standard industry definition. We will monitor DOE's efforts and evaluate the actions once they are complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management problems for capital asset projects, with a focus on those lessons that necessitate the need for department-wide improvements. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, plans to revise the Project Management Risk Committee charter by assigning it the responsibility to qualitatively evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management lessons learned from projects with a total project cost greater than $750 million having department-wide implications. This action, however, may not fully address the recommendation, in part because there may be some lessons learned with applicability department-wide from projects that do not meet this cost threshold. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Army Medical Command (1) collaborate with the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and the Air Force Medical Service to develop a common set of planning standards to be used to help determine dental clinic staffing needs, and (2) incorporate these standards into the Army's dental corps staffing model. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (1) collaborate with the Army Medical Command and the Air Force Medical Service to develop and implement a common set of planning standards to be used to help determine dental clinic staffing needs, and (2) incorporate these standards into the Navy's dental corps staffing model. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Air Force Medical Service (1) collaborate with the Army Medical Command and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery to develop and implement a common set of planning standards to be used to help determine dental clinic staffing needs, and (2) incorporate these standards into the Air Force's dental corps staffing model. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Army Medical Command evaluates the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention programs for military dentists, including the need for and effectiveness of the recruitment and retention incentives currently offered. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery evaluates the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention programs for military dentists, including the need for and effectiveness of the recruitment and retention incentives currently offered. (Recommendation 5)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the Surgeon General of the Air Force Medical Service evaluates the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention programs for military dentists, including the need for and effectiveness of the recruitment and retention incentives currently offered. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

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

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 the Army should direct the Army's Provost Marshal General to take actions to help ensure that physical security inspections at locations with Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives (AA&E) are conducted on time, as required by Army guidance. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Chief of Naval Operations' Supply, Ordnance, and Logistics Operations Division to take actions to help ensure that physical security inspections at locations with AA&E are conducted on time, as required by Navy guidance. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should direct the Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations to take actions to help ensure that physical security inspections at locations with AA&E are conducted on time, as required by Marine Corps guidance. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should direct the Air Force's Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, Directorate of Security Forces, to take actions to help ensure that inspectors at locations with AA&E are consistently documenting in inspection reports that all minimum requirements for physical security were checked. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to revise DOD guidance to require that the military services establish a process to consistently document the resolution of all identified physical security deficiencies. (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 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 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with Director of the DHA and the Surgeons General of the military departments, define and analyze the 16 operational readiness and installation-specific medical functions currently excluded from transfer to the DHA to determine whether opportunities exist to reduce or better manage duplicative functions and improve efficiencies in the administration of the MTFs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to responses provided by DOD officials in December 2019, the department provided guidance on the division of the 16 operational readiness and installation-specific medical functions in a March 2019 memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. However, further detail is needed regarding what analysis DOD completed to assess the 16 functions for duplication.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with DHA Assistant Director for Health Care Administration and the Secretaries of the military departments, validate headquarters-level personnel requirements to determine that they are established at the minimum levels necessary--per DOD guidance--to accomplish missions and achieve objectives before transferring authority, direction, and control of the MTFs to the DHA for the third phase. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD conducted a review of the DHA personnel requirements and that the military departments also conducted reviews. DOD officials also stated that DOD will continue to evaluate the mix of contractors, military, and civilian employees during and after the transition. However, the review of DHA personnel requirements DOD officials referenced in their December 2019 responses, as GAO previously reported in GAO-19-53, did not validate personnel requirements. Further information is needed regarding what steps DOD is taking to validate headquarters-level personnel requirements.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with DHA Assistant Director for Health Care Administration and the Secretaries of the military departments, conduct a comprehensive review to identify the least costly mix--per DOD guidance--of military, civilian, and contractors needed to meet validated requirements--that is, to perform the functions identified at the DHA headquarters and intermediate management organizations and at the military departments' headquarters and intermediate commands. Additionally, this comprehensive review should be completed before transferring authority, direction, and control of the MTFs to the DHA for the third phase. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that through the review of the budget development process, DOD transferred 1,900 personnel to the military departments for the management of their respective readiness missions. Further, DOD officials mentioned a 2018 report concerning a review of DHA personnel requirements. As reported in GAO-19-53, the report on DHA personnel requirements was specific to DHA and did not include information regarding the military departments' headquarters and intermediate commands. Further information is needed to determine whether DOD's efforts included a comprehensive review that considers the least costly mix--per DOD guidance--of military, civilian, and contractor personnel.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should (a) establish and implement a formal process to collect and monitor information on the extent to which all implemented IGSAs have resulted in financial and nonfinancial benefits and (b) document that process in Air Force IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should (a) establish and implement a process to monitor whether Navy installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs and to obtain explanations from installations on the outcome of their evaluations and (b) document that process in Navy IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation, and in March 2019 the Department of the Navy directed Commander, Navy Installations Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm any further actions the Navy has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should (a) establish and implement a process to monitor whether Marine Corps installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs and to obtain explanations from installations on the outcome of their evaluations and (b) document that process in Marine Corps IGSA policy or procedures. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: United States Marine Corps
Status: Open

Comments: The Marine Corps did not concur with this recommendation. However, in written comments, DOD stated that the Department of the Navy would implement this recommendation and that it would be applicable to both the Navy and Marine Corps. In March 2019, the Department of the Navy directed Marine Corps Installation Command to implement the recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Marine Corps has taken in response to this direction, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should document in Air Force IGSA policy or procedures its process for monitoring whether Air Force installations are evaluating opportunities for using IGSAs. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the Air Force has taken in response to it, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should develop and, as appropriate, implement options for collecting reliable information on the ANDSF conventional forces' ability to operate and maintain U.S.-purchased equipment. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated DOD advisors will continue to work with their Afghan counterparts to build their capacity to reliably report information on equipment status. As of September 2020, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DLA Document Services' single manager role for printing and reproduction provides the best value to the government--as determined by quality, price, and delivery time and in light of DLA Document Services' transformation plan--and whether any additional efficiencies are possible, and use the results of that assessment to inform the revision of DOD Instruction 5330.03. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. By July 2019, DOD had completed a study of printing and reproduction services to determine the best value to the department. As of December 2019, according to a DOD official, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment plans to develop steps toward achieving the best value to the government based on the study results, and update DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services by July 2020. Completion of these actions would allow DOD to determine if further efficiencies in its document services are possible.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DOD's current approach to obtaining print devices represents the best value to the government or whether other approaches, such as further consolidations under DLA Document Services as a proposed single manager for print device procurement, would be more cost effective. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. In July 2019, DOD had completed a study of printing and reproduction services to determine the best value to the department. As of December 2019, according to a DOD official, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment plans to develop steps toward achieving the best value to the government based on the study results, and update DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services by July 2020. Completion of these actions would allow DOD to determine if further efficiencies in its document services are possible.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) implements controls, such as reporting procedures, to routinely monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices, consistent with department-wide goals for reducing the number of print devices that are included in the CIO's 2012 memorandum. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD had ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, according to a DOD official, the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) will collaborate with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to define the necessary responsibilities, policy, and procedures in the planned revision of DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services. DOD plans to update the instruction by July 2020. Implementing controls, such as clarifying responsibilities, policy, and procedures would better enable DOD to achieve department-wide goals for reducing print devices it established in the CIO's 2012 memorandum.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO assigns responsibility for implementing the CIO's 2012 memorandum on optimizing the use of employee information technology devices. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with GAO's October 2018 recommendation. As of December 2019, DOD had ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, according to a DOD official, the DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) will collaborate with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to define the necessary responsibilities, policy, and procedures in the planned revision of DOD Instruction 5330.03, which describes the mission, responsibilities, functions, and relationships of DLA Document Services. DOD plans to update the instruction by July 2020. Implementing controls, such as clarifying responsibilities, policy, and procedures would better enable DOD to achieve department-wide goals for reducing print devices it established in the CIO's 2012 memorandum.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non-printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management. This information could be provided as part of DOD's annual Operation and Maintenance budget justification materials. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2019, DOD had ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, according to DOD documentation, the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) planned to examine the Service-related definitions of printing and reproduction for potential process improvements. DOD anticipated completing this action by July 2020. Examining opportunities to improve the definitions of printing and reproduction services would better position DOD to report more accurate funding information for document services, as GAO recommended in October 2018

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment updates or issues new policy clarifying the requirements for documenting sustainment strategies for legacy weapon systems, including fixed-wing aircraft. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In August 2019, DOD told us that draft language reinforcing and clarifying the requirement that all weapon system programs - including legacy weapon systems - have a current Life Cycle Sustainment Plan that is updated every five years had been drafted and submitted as part of the internal DOD coordination process for an update to DOD Instruction 5000.02. DOD estimates that the DOD Instruction 5000.02 will be updated by December 2019.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should update or issue new guidance clarifying the requirements for documenting sustainment strategies for legacy weapon systems, including fixed-wing aircraft. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Navy concurred with the recommendation. In August 2019, DOD told us that the Navy is working to update its policy to reinforce and clarify the requirement that all weapon system programs - including legacy weapon systems - have a current Life Cycle Sustainment Plan that is updated every five years. The Navy estimates that the policy will be updated by December 2019.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the U.S. Seaway Corporation should establish a process to identify, analyze, and monitor risks to the system's use to inform future actions to address those risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, DOT reported that the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is in the process of completing development of its new risk management program and anticipates having a final product that will be implemented by the end of 2020. GAO will continue to monitor the SLSDC's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Navy, should direct the polar icebreaker program and NAVSEA 05C to update the HPIB cost estimate in accordance with best practices for cost estimation, including (1) developing risk bounds for all phases of the program lifecycle, and on the basis of these risk bounds, conduct risk and uncertainty analysis, as well as sensitivity analysis, on all phases of the program lifecycle, and (2) reconciling the results with an updated independent cost estimate based on the same technical baseline before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are updating the polar icebreaker program's life cycle cost estimate to reflect information provided by the shipbuilder and anticipate completing the update in the fall 2020. We will review the updated life cycle cost estimate at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should direct the polar icebreaker program office to develop a program schedule in accordance with best practices for project schedules, including determining realistic durations of all shipbuilding activities and identifying and including a reasonable amount of margin in the schedule, to set realistic schedule goals for all three ships before the option for construction of the lead ship is awarded. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they updated the polar icebreaker program's schedule for the lead ship and are in the process of developing schedules for the follow-on ships. We will review the updated schedules once the Coast Guard provides them and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The DHS Under Secretary for Management should require the Coast Guard to update the HPIB acquisition program baselines prior to authorizing lead ship construction, after completion of the preliminary design review, and after it has gained the requisite knowledge on its technologies, cost, and schedule, as recommended above. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will require the Coast Guard to update the HPIB program's acquisition program baselines prior to authorizing lead ship construction. As of August 2020, Coast Guard officials anticipate updating the acquisition program baselines by no later than February 2021. We will review the updated HPIB acquisition program baselines at that time and determine if the actions taken meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, fully implements a process to obtain projected airlift workload from the military services and Combatant Commanders on a routine basis to improve the accuracy of its workload forecasts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, uses forecast performance metrics and establishes forecast accuracy goals for the airlift workload. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, develops a corrective action plan to improve the accuracy of its workload forecasting. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it plans to take specific actions in response. As of July 31, 2020. DOD had not demonstrated that the commendation has been implemented. we will provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense ensures that the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force take interim steps to help ensure that standardized aviation mishap data elements are collected by the safety centers. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to a corrective action plan that DOD updated in July 2020, the department has taken some steps to implement this recommendation. According to the plan, DOD is developing standards for mishap data through the Safety and Information Management Working Group and is making progress towards finalizing mishap data element standards. DOD's internal tracking indicates that the draft business process model has been completed, but standardizing the DOD data elements is a work in-progress. DOD's estimated completion date for this effort is June 2021. Completing these actions would allow the military services' safety centers to collect relevant training-related data as part of the update of aviation mishap data elements, as GAO recommended in August 2018.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense ensures that the Offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment in coordination with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force update department-wide and service instructions and policies to clarify the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for conducting analysis and its access to the military services' information on human factors that contributed to aviation mishaps. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to a corrective action plan that DOD updated in July 2020, the department has taken some steps to implement this recommendation. According to the plan, DOD is revising DOD Instruction 6055.07, which will clarify the department's policy that it is the responsibility of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for conducting analysis and its access to the military services' information on human factors that contributed to aviation mishaps. DOD's estimated completion date for this effort is July 2021. Completing this action would clarify the Office of the Secretary of Defense's role for conducting analyses and access to the military services' safety centers' data on aviation mishaps, as GAO recommended in August 2018.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense ensures that the DOD Chief Management Officer in coordination with the offices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force identify relevant training-related data to collect as part of any update of the aviation mishap data elements and incorporate these data into future analyses. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to a corrective action plan that DOD updated in July 2020, the department has taken some steps to implement this recommendation. According to the plan, DOD is developing standards for mishap data through the Safety and Information Management Working Group and is making progress towards finalizing mishap data element standards. DOD's internal tracking indicates that the draft business process model has been completed, but standardizing the DOD data elements is a work in-progress. DOD's estimated completion date for this effort is June 2021. Completing these actions would allow the military services' safety centers to collect relevant training-related data as part of the update of aviation mishap data elements, as GAO recommended in August 2018.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, comprehensively evaluate the funding targets for Category A and B MWR programs and document any changes made to the targets and the methodology used. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials stated that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials estimate completing this by 9/30/2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the USD(P&R), in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, develop measurable goals for its MWR programs' performance measures to determine the programs' cost-effectiveness. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. OSD officials stated that the Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the entire DOD MWR program that will encompass a review of the MWR funding targets. OSD officials said that OSD, in conjunction with the Military Departments have been engaged over the last two years to complete this review. OSD officials said that once this review is complete, DOD Instruction 1015.10 and DOD Instruction 1015.15 will be updated with the new policy. OSD officials said that after agreement on the new funding targets is reached, work will begin to develop measurable performance goals. OSD officials estimate that this work will be completed by 9/30/2022.

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 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment clarifies the categories of threats within JIDO's counter-improvised threat mission. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment clarifies JIDO's authorities for countering improvised threats, including the degree to which JIDO is to focus (lead, advocate, and coordinate) departmental efforts in key areas such as research and rapid fielding. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the DTRA Director establishes a process to routinely obtain permission to release applicable information from organizations connected to JIDO research projects so that JIDO can send the information to Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the DTRA Director establishes a process to submit information on JIDO's research projects to DTIC. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops and implements mechanisms to consistently capture information on pilots' post-service employment, including the number of those going to the commercial airlines, such as through revising existing exit surveys, or working in coordination with the National Pilot Sourcing Forum specifically to monitor commercial airline hiring to supplement the information DOD collects. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Secretary of the Air Force analyzes staffing levels by officer grade for each pilot community as part of its annual business case for aviation retention bonus payments to help ensure that aviation retention bonuses are targeted to the appropriate pilot communities. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD officials stated that the Air Force plans to make changes to its upcoming business case analysis to break out control grade from field grade officers to better delineate the staffing challenges it faces as well as the targeted effect of aviation bonus offerings. Officials stated that this change is part of an ongoing study with RAND that should be completed in early summer 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to update the policy or guidance for MAIS business programs. Specifically, the update should include the following elements: (1) establishment of initial and current baseline cost and schedule estimates, (2) predetermined threshold cost and schedule estimates to identify the point when programs may be at high risk, and (3) quarterly and annual reports on the performance of programs to stakeholders. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued an updated instruction on defense business systems requirements and acquisition, which included guidance on establishing baseline cost and schedule estimates and considering progress against the baselines at key decision points. However, the instruction does not make a distinction between initial and current baselines. Further, it did not include thresholds for cost and schedule variances or specify periodic reporting of program performance information to stakeholders. According to an official in the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the office does not intend to add the elements of the recommendation related to thresholds and reporting. Specifically, according to the official, the office considers specifying predetermined threshold cost and schedule estimates and frequency for status reporting to be matters for implementation guidance issued by department components or determined by a program decision authority. However, until the department demonstrates that it has fully addressed the recommendation, it is limited in its ability to ensure that effective system acquisition management controls are implemented for each major business system investment and that stakeholders have the information needed to make informed decisions for managing and overseeing these investments. We will continue to monitor the department's implementation of the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Director of the Defense Health Agency to direct the program manager for the Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization program to: (1) finalize and approve its requirements management plan, (2) identify and document changes that should be made to plans and work products resulting from changes to the requirements baseline, and (3) quantify costs and benefits of risk mitigation within its program-level risk mitigation plans. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, the Department of Defense had made progress addressing the intent of the recommendation related to requirements management; however, it needs to do more to improve DHMSM program risk management. Specifically, in March 2019, the DHMSM program manager approved a requirements management plan, which includes identifying and documenting changes that should be made to plans and work products resulting from changes to the baseline requirements. Specifically, it includes forward and backward configuration and change management of the baselined requirements and managing traceability of requirements to design artifacts, test cases, defects, and change requests. However, the program has not demonstrated that it quantifies costs and benefits of risk mitigation in its risk mitigation plans. Specifically, it did not demonstrate that it had updated its guidance to require that costs and benefits of risk mitigation plans be included in these plans. We will continue to monitor the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Special Needs (OSN) to assess the extent to which each Service is (1) providing sufficient resources for an appropriate number of family support providers, and (2) developing services plans for each family with special needs, and to include these results as part of OSN's analysis of any gaps in services for military families with special needs in each annual report issued by the Department to the congressional defense committees. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted they plan to pilot a staffing tool that will help the Services determine the number of family support providers needed at each installation. The pilot currently includes multiple Services and is expected to last two years. DOD officials also noted that DOD is in the process of standardizing its case management processes for military families with special needs through its family needs assessment form. Among other things, this form is meant to help family support providers address requirements for individualized services plans and gain a better understanding of each family's current needs and goals. In its 2018 annual report to the congressional defense committees, DOD noted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requirement to develop and continuously update an individualized services plan for each military family with special needs. However, DOD said OSN may propose legislative changes to this requirement that would require an individualized services plan to be developed and updated only for those families that request services from family support providers. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when the staffing tool is finalized and OSN has assessed each Service's number of family support providers and efforts to develop services plans.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of Special Needs (OSN) to develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, in accordance with leading practices for performance measurement. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD officials noted that each Service submits data for assignment coordination and family support to the EFMP data repository on a quarterly basis. According to DOD officials, in 2018, the data repository was expanded to include a full year of quarterly data for each Service, and OSN is currently developing additional performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support. DOD also noted that it will continue to use the data repository to identify gaps and trends related to assignment coordination and family support, including collecting data from each installation. As of June 2020, we await documentation that OSN has developed performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support and uses them to identify gaps and trends across the Services.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should implement a systematic process for evaluating the results of monitoring activities conducted by each Service's EFMP. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD said the family support component is monitored and evaluated through the each Service's certification process which includes specific standards for the EFMP. In addition, OSN participated in a monitoring site visit to Marine Corps Base Quantico in December 2018 and plans to participate in additional site visits that are coordinated by each Service's certification team. As of June 2020, we will consider closing this recommendation when DOD implements a process to evaluate the results of each Service's certification process.

Recommendation: The F-35 Program Executive Officer should formally share or make available, through a new or existing communications mechanism, F-35 operational lessons learned across the services. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the Navy all have robust systems for capturing and sharing F-35 operational lessons learned. However, although these systems are accessible by members of the other services, there is a general lack of awareness of how to access systems across military services. As of December 2019, DOD officials stated that they were developing a Lessons Learned Database, which they estimate will be completed during the third quarter of 2020. We are encouraged that the department is aware of the importance of sharing operational lessons learned across the services and that a solution is likely on the horizon. However, until the department implements the solution, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Commanding General of SOCOM, clarify its guidance on perstempo thresholds as long as the statutory thresholds are waived by either establishing specific and measurable department-wide perstempo thresholds in DOD policy or ensuring that the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps establish and follow their own service-specific guidance on thresholds. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department concurred with this recommendation. In July 2019, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R) issued a memo that, among other things, directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to (1) direct the Military Departments to comply with reporting of the military personnel data and reporting requirements necessary to support the measurement and reporting of the perstempo of the military forces as laid out in DoDI 1336.07; and (2) develop threshold policies for perstempo events. In addition, it stated that the OUSD/P&R will chair a working group to refine optempo and perstempo policy proposals for inclusion into a formal policy document(s). In November 2019, the OUSD/P&R issued another memo that provided broad perstempo policy and emphasized adherence to modified guidance codified in DODI 1336.07, which as of July 2020 is undergoing DOD directives review for issuance. The OUSD/P&R memo further directed the military departments to provide service-level perstempo guidance, to include thresholds and compliance measures, for their components. We will continue to monitor these actions and update the status of our recommendation as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Commanding General of SOCOM, take steps to emphasize the collection of complete and reliable perstempo data so that DOD, the services, and SOCOM can monitor perstempo. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department concurred with this recommendation. In July 2019, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R) issued a memo that, among other things, directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) to develop policies for the accurate measurement and reporting of unit operational deployment data. In addition, the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) will (1) conduct department-wide coordination to develop the necessary technical capabilities for DOD to collect, monitor, and evaluate optempo and perstempo data; (2) develop procedures for perstempo and operational deployment data validation to ensure quality checks are conducted regularly and feedback mechanisms to the military departments for error detection and correction are in place, if necessary; and (3) ensure coordination efforts for optempo and perstempo data collection efforts do not duplicate or interfere with current systems collecting such information. In November 2019, the OUSD/P&R issued another memo that provided broad perstempo policy and emphasized adherence to modified guidance codified in DODI 1336.07, which as of July 2020 is undergoing DOD directives review for issuance. This memo and draft instruction provide direction on the reporting of perstempo events and emphasize the collection of complete and reliable perstempo data. Additionally, to enhance data processing and rectify data quality issues, DOD has drafted Uniformed Services Human Resources Information System Procedures, which is also undergoing DoD directives review for official issuance, and DMDC has worked with the services to make specific data improvements. We will continue to monitor for the issuance of the draft DODI and System Procedures and update the status of our recommendation as appropriate.

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: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the Director of Operations and the Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency reevaluate fighter pilot squadron requirements, to include updating current assumptions of fighter pilot workload, and assessing the impact of future incorporation of UAS platforms into combat aviation. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Air Force, many organizations and offices, in addition to the Director of Operations and Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency will play integral roles in determining the future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter pilot squadrons. DOD also noted that the Air Force will review fighter wing manpower determinants to accurately account for fighter pilot workloads and analyze support organization manning to ensure adequate support to operational units. In December 2018, the Air Force provided a report to Congress on the efforts to implement GAO's recommendation, among other things. The report noted that an Air Force reevaluation of pilot staff requirements resulted in a reduction to requirements of 106 positions (4 percent). In addition, the report discussed how fighter pilot workload is impacted by UAS platforms, specifically that the growth of UAS platforms has allowed the Air Force to reduce the need for fighter aircraft operations in uncontested environments, and that the growth of the UAS pilot community has allowed that community to begin filling staff positions that would formerly have been filled by fighter pilots. Further, the report stated that the Air Force Manpower Analysis Agency - in coordination with other Air Force offices - was conducting a study of fighter squadron workloads, anticipated to be completed in mid-2019. We requested a copy of the Air For Manpower Analysis Agency study in March 2020, and again in August 2020 - but as of September 2020 a copy has not been provided. Once we have an opportunity to review the study we will update the status of this recommendation as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Naval Operations reevaluate fighter pilot squadron requirements, to include updating current assumptions of fighter pilot workload, and assessing the impact of future incorporation of UAS platforms into combat aviation. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Navy, many organizations and offices including the resource sponsor (Naval Air Forces) will play integral roles in determining the future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter pilot squadrons. As of August 2020, DOD officials told us that the Navy has updated most of the fighter pilot requirements for most squadrons, is taking action to update requirements for the remaining squadrons, and will provide us with documentation when the process is complete. When we obtain documentation of the updates to fighter pilot squadron requirements we will update the recommendation status as appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Deputy Commandant for Aviation reevaluate fighter pilot squadron requirements. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that across the Marine Corps, many organizations and offices in addition to the Deputy Commandant for Aviation play integral roles in the continuous evaluation and determination regarding current and future size and mix of manpower requirements for fighter and attack squadrons. As of August 2020 DOD has not taken actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief of Naval Operations should clarify workforce planning policies to identify circumstances in which federal civilian employees and private sector contractors may serve in operational roles and what the benefits and limitations are of using federal civilians and private sector contractors as alternative workforces. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Chief of Naval Operations should, after clarifying workforce planning policies, apply the revised policies to evaluate the use of alternative workforces (including federal civilian employees and private sector contractors) for future unmanned system operators. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should clarify workforce planning policies to identify circumstances in which federal civilian employees and private sector contractors may serve in operational roles and what the benefits and limitations are of using federal civilians and private sector contractors as alternative workforces. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should, after clarifying workforce planning policies, apply the revised policies to evaluate the use of alternative workforces (including federal civilian employees and private sector contractors) for future unmanned system operators. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, in coordination with the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Combat Development and Integration, should update the Marine Corps personnel requirements associated with the RQ-21 Blackjack UAS based on the most current and enduring concept of operations and utilize the updated requirements in planning for UAS squadron personnel requirements. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, should update the life cycle cost estimate for the RQ-21 Blackjack UAS to make adjustments as appropriate after updating the personnel requirements for the system. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems (N9), in coordination with the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, should prioritize continued efforts to fully evaluate policies for operating and maintaining UAS of different sizes and capabilities, such as group 3 UAS--to include establishing completion time frames, determining whether reductions to personnel requirements could be accomplished, and identifying any associated cost savings and the benefits to the UAS squadrons' ability to complete missions--and update such policies as needed. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should clarify overarching goals for unmanned systems' personnel requirements, including related priority levels for resourcing purposes, and communicate them to requirements planners and budget decision makers. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. However, it has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Chief of Naval Personnel and the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs should assess civilian supply, demand, and wages in the commercial drone industry and use the results to inform retention approaches, including the use of special and incentive pays for UAS operators. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Deputy Commandant for Aviation and the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs should examine the use of additional human capital flexibilities that could improve the career satisfaction and retention of experienced UAS operators and maximize their availability to squadrons. Such flexibilities could include authorizing available special and incentive pays; permitting UAS operators to extend their enlistments to serve longer within squadrons; ensuring the availability of career- and promotion-enhancing opportunities for professional military education; considering the use of a potential insignia device for operators; or extending UAS operator contract lengths. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD has not fully implemented it as of November 2019.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should fully include in the new policy for sexual harassment the principles in the Centers for Disease Control's framework for sexual violence prevention, including risk and protective factors, risk domains, and tertiary strategies. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In written comments on the draft report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2020, officials with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness stated that development of a new sexual harassment prevention strategy was complete and going through DOD's internal review process. The officials stated that the Undersecretary's review and approval of the assessment report will be complete before the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the status of this recommendation as more information becomes available.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness to incorporate in its continuum of harm prevention strategy all the elements that are key for establishing a long-term, results-oriented strategic planning framework. The elements are (1) a mission statement, (2) long-term goals, (3) strategies to achieve goals, (4) external factors that could affect goals, (5) use of metrics to gauge progress, and (6) evaluations of the plan to monitor goals and objectives. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments on the draft report, DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to officials with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, development of a new sexual harassment prevention strategy is complete and the strategy is going through DOD's internal review process. Additionally, a Defense Equal Opportunity Reform Group assessment report containing a review of the department's efforts to prevent sexual harassment was also submitted to the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The official's stated that the Undersecretary's review and approval of both the new strategy and assessment report should be completed by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation and will update its status when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD's annual program and budget review process, but adding that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds. We have since determined that the Department of the Army has estimated sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects, and plans to incorporate those costs into the out-year cost projections in the next budget submission. As of August 2020 the Air Force had not taken steps to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should assess the risks to accomplishing both of the GRF's uses: that is, its use as an augmentation capability available as needed to individual geographic combatant commands; and its use as a tailorable joint force available for rapid response to a specific threat. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment (DFE) concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should, as appropriate following the assessment of risk, design responses, such as further defining and prioritizing the GRF's intended uses and missions, to mitigate any identified risks. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should designate an authority to establish and enforce integrated joint training for GRF-assigned units, as appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD has not implemented this recommendation and stated that DOD is developing its Dynamic Force Employment concept, which will have a direct impact on the mission, construct, command relationships, and training of the Department's Global Response Force. DOD has not specified when the implementation of the DFE will be complete.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness should collect quality information and conduct an analysis of the potential effects of unreimbursed travel expenses incurred by reservists to perform military service on DOD's ability to retain reservists in the force, and respond to these risks by considering the costs and benefits of any possible actions to address the identified issues.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the National Guard Bureau and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Integration) commissioned the Institute for Defense Analyses to conduct a study to address our recommendation. According to DOD officials, the study was completed in September 2019 but has not yet been published, and an implementation plan is currently being developed. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To more effectively and efficiently integrate virtual training devices into operational training, that the Secretary of Defense should direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop guidance for the development and use of virtual training devices that includes (1) developing requirements for virtual training devices that consider and document training tasks and objectives, required proficiency, and available training time; (2) setting target usage rates and collecting usage data; and (3) conducting effectiveness analysis of virtual training devices that defines a consistent process for performing the analysis, including the selection of the devices to be evaluated, guidelines on conducting the analysis, and the data that should be collected and assessed.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In December 2018, the Marine Corps had completed some actions and has other ongoing actions intended to address the recommendation. For example, in June 2017 the Marine Corps issued the Marine Corps Ground Training Simulations Implementation Plan. The plan provides a framework for the Marine Corps' use of current and future simulations technology and virtual training environments to align training efforts and resource requirements. In addition, the Marine Corps continues to revise its training and readiness program manuals to articulate requirements that document training tasks, objectives, and required proficiency and reemphasize the importance of more effectively integrating ground simulations within current ground training approaches. Further, the Marine Corps is currently staffing a comprehensive Ground Simulations Training Reference Guide and is testing a new process, termed the Ground Simulation Training Effectiveness Process. This process will provide guidelines on conducting effectiveness analysis, including the selection of the devices to be evaluated and an identification of the data to be collected and assessed. As of August 2020, these actions remain in progress. Once fully implemented, these actions should help the Marine Corps more effectively and efficiently integrate virtual training devices into operational training, as GAO recommended in September 2017.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop a comprehensive plan for shipyard capital investment that establishes (1) the desired goal for the shipyards' condition and capabilities; (2) an estimate of the full costs to implement the plan, addressing all relevant requirements, external risk factors, and associated planning costs; and (3) metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to develop and implement a comprehensive plan. Naval Sea Systems Command produced a Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan in February 2018 to guide the overhaul and improvement of the naval shipyards. This plan includes some of the recommended elements but not others. (1) The plan includes some goals for the desired shipyard condition and capabilities including to: recover almost 70 maintenance periods over the next 20 years, modernize capital equipment to industry standards, optimize facilities, and reduce travel time and movement for personnel and materiel during the maintenance process. Navy officials stated the program office is in the process of creating digital maps of the yards to use in modeling facility layouts to identify the optimal layout. The Navy states that the optimal layout will recover 328,000 man days per year, a 65 percent reduction of travel and movement. (2) The report includes a preliminary cost estimate, but work is underway to determine the full costs to address all relevant requirements, risk factors, and planning costs. The plan identifies risks that could increase costs, but does not identify solutions to address those risks. Program officials said they will develop plans to address the risks in subsequent phases of the planning effort. The risks Navy officials identified included historical preservation, environmental regulations, and the need for extra capacity. (3) The plan did not include metrics for assessing progress toward meeting each of the goals. Navy officials stated that they intend to develop metrics to meet this element during a second phase that will be complete in fiscal year 2020.To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy should complete its optimization plan, develop a reliable cost estimate addressing all relevant requirements, risks, and planning costs, and develop metrics to help it assess progress towards meeting its goal that include measuring the effectiveness of capital investments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should conduct regular management reviews that include all relevant stakeholders to oversee implementation of the plan, review metrics, assess the progress made toward the goal, and make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that the goal is attained. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to conduct regular management reviews. To address this recommendation, the Navy issued NAVSEA Notice 5450 in June 2018. This notice established a new program management office responsible for planning, developing, scheduling, budgeting, and sustaining the replacement of shipyard facilities and equipment. By creating this office, the Navy has taken a first step toward establishing a result-oriented management approach and toward implementing our recommendation to conduct regular management reviews. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, in September 2018, required this new program office to provide regular updates to an Executive Oversight Council. These updates could serve as a foundation to address this recommendation. However, as noted in GAO-20-64, the Navy has faced challenges involving all the relevant stakeholders in the plan's implementation, namely the shipyards. In the absence of clear direction, the shipyards have worked with the program office to develop several informal collaboration mechanisms. For example, the program office and the shipyards have begun several shipyard-specific working groups and hold regular telephone calls. However, until the shipyards are formally involved in the implementation and assessment of the plan, the Navy will be unable to fully meet the direction of this recommendation to involve "all relevant stakeholders."

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress on the progress the shipyards are making to meet the goal of the comprehensive plan, along with any challenges that hinder that progress, such as cost. This may include reporting on progress to reduce their facilities restoration and modernization backlogs, improve the condition and configuration of the shipyards, and recapitalize capital equipment. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to provide regular reporting to key decision makers and Congress. DOD officials stated in October 2018 that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan, along with the creation of the Readiness Reform Oversight Council, address this recommendation. While the Readiness Reform Oversight Council does appear to involve some of the key stakeholders who should be receiving the regular reporting, the Navy has already made clear that it sees the shipyard optimization process as a 20-year-long effort. Given that, regular reporting on progress cannot be achieved with a single disclosure at the beginning of the effort. Both Congress and DOD decision makers need to receive regular updates on the implementation of the shipyard optimization plan, and while it is possible that the newly created Shipyard Program Management Office will be able to provide such reporting, that organization is still being developed and, as of August 2019, no progress reporting has yet begun.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should take steps to ensure the collection of data measuring the timeliness of the delivery of equipment and services to recipient countries. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: Based on the evidence DSCA has provided to date, this recommendation remains open. In March and September 2019, DSCA provided responses, including a copy of the October 2018 Memorandum eliminating 13-27, which was the requirement to provide the first item or service within 180 days of signing the LOA. DSCA also indicated that it had established an initiative to identify milestones. In order to close this recommendation, DSCA needs to provide evidence that this initiative resulted in the identification and implementation of metrics and targets to measure the cycle time of FMS sales from LOA implementation to delivery, and the collection of the appropriate data necessary to use the metrics to manage performance. In the absence of such measures, DSCA's elimination of the 180-day requirement is not consistent with GAO's recommendation to ensure the collection of data measuring the timeliness of the delivery and services to recipient countries. GAO is reviewing responses provided in late 2019 to see whether they satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should analyze data on all performance metrics to better identify deficiencies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019 DSCA indicated that it has not yet identified the most appropriate milestones to efficiently and effectively track FMS sales. In addition, pursuant to Recommendation #1, DSCA has eliminated the only performance metric for measuring the timeliness of the delivery of goods and services upon executing an LOA. This recommendation remains open until DSCA identifies the metrics, and collects and analyzes the data to measure performance, including the timeliness of the process. GAO is reviewing the responses provided in late 2019 to determine whether they satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should develop a workforce plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, DSCA officials informed GAO that DSCA will include a workforce plan in a Human Capital Strategy Plan. In June 2019, GAO was informed that the Human Capital Strategy had been completed, and requested a copy. In September 2019, DSCA informed us that the workforce plan should be completed by December 2020. GAO may be able to close this recommendation after receiving and reviewing the Strategy if it includes the promised workforce plan.

Recommendation: The Acting Director of DSCA should develop workload measures for its FMS workforce. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, DSCA informed GAO that it is currently establishing workload models. In order to close Recommendation 4, DSCA should provide, or make available for review, the workload models for the Country Portfolio Director and Country Financial Director positions, as well as the workload models for Title 10 equipping and end-use monitoring positions. In September 2019, DSCA provided information on the status of the efforts to develop workload measures. DSCA should also provide an explanation of why DSCA has determined that these functions lend themselves to a workload model, while other functions do not. GAO is reviewing the response provided in late 2019 to determine whether DSCA has satisfied the recommendation.

Recommendation: To enhance enterprise-wide biometric strategic planning, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should publish a supporting biometric implementation plan that includes intended outcomes, measures of effectiveness, and responsibilities, among other things.

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

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD indicated that it has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: To facilitate more effective and efficient acquisition management of DOD's biometric and forensic enterprises, the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, should complete a disposition analysis for the Near Real Time Identity Operations solution before the solution reaches operation and sustainment.

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

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD indicated that it has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: To facilitate more effective and efficient acquisition management of DOD's biometric and forensic enterprises, the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, should consider including geographic dispersal as part of the selection criteria for the DOD Automated Biometric Information System (ABIS) follow-on system.

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

Comments: DOD agreed with the recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD indicated that it has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy; Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Personnel and Readiness; and with military service and agency stakeholders, should conduct operations security surveys that identify IoT security risks and protect DOD information and operations, in accordance with DOD guidance, or address operations security risks posed by IoT devices through other DOD risk assessments.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. We reached out to DOD in August 2018 on this recommendation and are awaiting their response.

Recommendation: The Principal Cyber Advisor, in coordination with the DOD Chief Information Officer; the Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy; Intelligence; Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Personnel and Readiness; and with military service and agency stakeholders, should (1) review and assess existing departmental security policies and guidance--on cybersecurity, operations security, physical security, and information security--that may affect IoT devices; and (2) identify areas where new DOD policies and guidance may be needed--including for specific IoT devices, applications, or procedures--and where existing security policies and guidance can be updated to address IoT security concerns.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD has implemented one geo-location policy in 2018 relating to operations security that addresses a portion of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should direct the Director of Civil Works to determine whether existing tools and capabilities (such as the Corps' analyses and models related to inland harbors' conditions and freight traffic, as well as shoaling effects at coastal ports) can be adapted to help evaluate other factors when allocating funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Corps should report to Congress on the feasibility, limitations, and potential costs and on an estimate of any additional funds needed to use such an approach to meet the statutory requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works)
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of December 2019, officials from the Corps stated that they are working to develop additional metrics for dredging decisions and will brief congressional committees on the results. We will continue to follow the Corps' progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: As DOD continues to improve the completeness and transparency of subsequent joint reports' methodologies in order to assist Congress in understanding the basis of the NC3 estimates by documenting the methodological assumptions and limitations affecting the report's estimates for sustaining and modernizing the NC3 system, as we previously recommended, for future joint reports, the DOD CIO should include explanations of how DOD (1) selects program elements for inclusion in its NC3 estimate, (2) determines its weighted analysis ratios, and (3) differentiates its methodology for calculating operation and maintenance estimates from its methodologies for calculating estimates for the other NC3 line items.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Chief Information Officer
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of the issuance of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Joint Report, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop NC3 budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD must still provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the FYDP. However, according to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: In order to assist Congress in comparing year-to-year cost estimates between joint reports, for future joint reports, the Secretary of the Air Force should provide information about any programmatic changes (i.e., programs being moved from one line item to another) in its estimates and include an explanation of the reasons for those changes and how those changes may affect year-to-year comparisons of the budget estimates.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, the Air Force identified some instances of programmatic changes in its estimates. However, not all programmatic changes were identified in the report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future annual joint budget estimate reports.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to, in coordination with the Director, USMEPCOM, establish a schedule to repair the internal EPTS database so that USMEPCOM can provide more regular and specific feedback to MEPS chief medical officers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments to this recommendation, DOD concurred with this recommendation and said that the database was inoperable but that it was being reviewed as part of a multi-year information technology modernization effort to transition all military medical records to a new system known as MHS (Military Health System) GENESIS. They noted that the capability for USMEPCOM to conduct EPTS medical records review would be available within MHS GENESIS' business intelligence tools once implemented. When asked about the status of any actions taken to address this recommendation by preparing a schedule as to when this internal database would be repaired, DOD responded in January 2018 that USMEPCOM is unable to expend any funds to repair or replace the EPTS database system as this functionality is to be incorporated into the upcoming MHS GENESIS program. DOD officials confirmed that USMEPCOM's initial site testing will occur in FY 2019. While DOD officials are not able to repair its current internal database needed to complete its statistical analysis of these particular medical records, MHS GENESIS will be able to provide USMEPCOM with this capability. In August 2019, a senior DOD official confirmed that using MHS GENESIS is still the primary course of action to address this recommendation. He said that its implementation is planned for 2020/2021; however, there has been another delay and the department is waiting for a new implementation date to be established. In May 2020, this same official provided updated information that said MHS Genesis was delayed until 2021. Therefore, until further progress is made in implementing MHS GENESIS, this recommendation should remain open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the DOD Healthcare Management Systems Program Executive Office, develop a schedule of actions for deploying its new electronic health record system, MHS GENESIS, within USMEPCOM that includes key activities such as the major actions required to accomplish this effort, completion dates for all actions leading up to these events, and dates for the system's deployment to MEPS locations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments to this recommendation, DOD partially concurred and stated that it began fielding MHS GENESIS and anticipated issuing a Full Deployment Decision (FDD) certification in 2018 to proceed to the remaining sites. Further, when asked about the status of any actions taken to address this recommendation, DOD responded in January 2018 that USMEPCOM's inclusion in MHS GENESIS is scheduled for approval in late fiscal year 2018 with initial MEPS site testing in fiscal year 2019. According to DOD, USMEPCOM officials are working closely with the program management officials and the MHS GENESIS team to develop information requirements for approval and inclusion in the MHS GENESIS deployment plan once FDD is granted. The estimated completion date for the roll out to all remaining MEPS locations is fiscal year 2021. In August 2019, a senior DOD official confirmed that the department's primary course of action for addressing this recommendation remains the use of MHS GENESIS. However, he said that DOD has experience a delay and in May 2020, he stated that MHS Genesis had been delayed until FY 21. Given that DOD is still in the process of deploying MHS GENESIS, we believe this recommendation should remain open until progress has been made in implementing the MHS Genesis within the MEPS locations.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to revise the Navy's ship delivery policy to clarify what types of deficiencies need to be corrected and what mission capability (including the levels of quality and capability) must be achieved at (1) delivery and (2) when the ship is provided to the fleet (at the obligation work limiting date (OWLD)). In doing so, the Navy should clearly define what constitutes a complete ship and when that should be achieved.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD disagreed with our recommendation to clarify the Navy's ship delivery policy and stated that other existing policies help ensure the completion and capability of ships at delivery. However, as of August 2020, Navy officials stated that they are working on a new response based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to develop a new proposal for responding to this recommendation by December 2020. We maintain that the Navy's ship delivery policy is a key instruction for ensuring that complete, mission-capable ships are provided to the fleet and should be revised in line with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to reconcile policy with practice to support INSURV's role in making a recommendation for fleet introduction. Accomplishing this may require a study of the current timing of ship trials, and the costs and benefits associated with adding an INSURV assessment prior to providing ships to the fleet.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD and the Navy did not concur with this recommendation, noting that the current timing of Navy Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) trials provides the Navy with an opportunity to ensure contractual obligations have been met and identify construction deficiencies for correction during the post-delivery period. DOD and the Navy also stated that adding another INSURV trial at the end of the post-delivery period would not be cost-effective and could delay ship deployment schedules. However, we found that most of the significant construction deficiencies identified prior to delivery were not corrected until the post-delivery period and, therefore, INSURV generally did not have an opportunity to inspect these corrections before ships were provided to the fleet. Given this, we maintain that the Navy should re-assess the timing of its post-delivery trials in support of INSURV's responsibility to make recommendations for fleet introduction. As of August 2020, DOD officials stated that they are working on a proposal to address this recommendation based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to complete this proposal by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to reflect additional ship milestones in Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, including OWLD and readiness to deploy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD and the Navy agreed to report obligation work limiting dates (OWLD) in its Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, and, as of December 2018, has implemented this portion of the recommendation. The department added the OWLDs for all ships that have yet to achieve this milestone to its Selected Acquisition Reports and plans to continue reporting this information in all subsequent Selected Acquisition Reports. However, DOD did not agree to report ready-to-deploy dates in the Selected Acquisition Reports to Congress, noting that operational factors outside of acquisition concerns can affect the timing of this milestone. While we agree that readiness to deploy is a fleet determination, we continue to believe that this date is important for Congressional oversight, as it remains the best milestone for determining when a ship has achieved a sufficient level of completeness to operate, under the Navy's current framework for ship delivery. As of August 2020, DOD and Navy officials stated that they are working on a new proposal for addressing the recommendation based on ongoing discussions with GAO and they expect to complete this proposal by December 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to counter both near and far term threats, consistent with its S&T framework, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to annually define the mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments for each military department.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not include a requirement for that office to annually define the mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments for each military department. In September 2019, the Office of the USD(R&E) released an updated science & technology strategy. While the updated strategy acknowledges the need to invest in both incremental and disruptive innovation, the strategy does not define what an appropriate investment mix should be. In lieu of a DOD-wide defined mix set by USD(R&E), in April 2019, the Air Force issued its own science and technology strategy that acknowledged the need for both incremental and disruptive investments and defined what that mix should be. However, recent Army (2019) and Navy (2017) science and technology strategies do not define those military departments' desired mixes of incremental and disruptive innovation investments. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to counter both near and far term threats, consistent with its S&T framework, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to annually assess whether that mix is achieved.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require that office to annually assess whether a desired mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments mix had been achieved. In December 2019, a senior official within the Office of the USD(R&E) stated that DOD's Communities of Interest -- a component of DOD's overarching Reliance 21 framework for science and technology coordination -- are required to plan short- and long-term research and assess that research for an appropriate mix and balance between research priorities. However, as of December 2019, USD(R&E) has not yet articulated what the appropriate mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments should be for DOD. Therefore, it is unknown the criteria the Communities use to evaluate whether an appropriate balance exists between research priorities, including incremental and disruptive innovation. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to more comprehensively implement leading practices for managing science and technology programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to define, in policy or guidance, an S&T management framework that includes emphasizing greater use of existing flexibilities to more quickly initiate and discontinue projects to respond to the rapid pace of innovation.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require it to define a science and technology management framework that includes a process for discontinuing projects. In December 2019, a senior official with USD(R&E) reported that DOD has successfully implemented flexible funding vehicles such as the Defense Modernization Account that allowed funds to be rapidly moved to promising prototype projects within DOD's science and technology enterprise. In addition, this senior official reported an increased use of Other Transaction Authority by the Defense Innovation Unit and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Nonetheless, the Office of the USD(R&E) has not yet developed policy or guidance that military departments could use to emphasize greater use of existing flexibilities for initiating and discontinuing science and technology projects. Consequently, DOD's processes for initiating and terminating science and technology projects largely remain linked to the annual federal budgeting process, which is not responsive to the rapid pace of innovation. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to more comprehensively implement leading practices for managing science and technology programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to define, in policy or guidance, an S&T management framework that includes incorporating acquisition stakeholders into technology development programs to ensure they are relevant to customers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, roles, and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require that office to define, in policy or guidance, a science and technology framework that includes incorporating acquisition stakeholders into technology development programs. In December 2019, a senior official within the Office of the USD(R&E) reported that USD(R&E) actively partners with acquisition stakeholders to ensure technology development programs are relevant to customers. The official cited Rapid Prototyping Programs (RPPs), Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTDs), and Emerging Capability Technology Development (ECTD) programs as examples where management frameworks in which technology managers actively partner with (1) operational managers from the Combatant Commands or military departments and (2) technology transition managers from the military departments to ensure programs are relevant to customers. However, these efforts are narrow in scope and do not constitute the majority of science and technology investments DOD makes. In addition, the senior official reported that the Army and the Air Force are taking steps to incorporate and integrate acquisition stakeholders into their science and technology projects, but these efforts are in their infancy. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to more comprehensively implement leading practices for managing science and technology programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to define, in policy or guidance, an S&T management framework that includes promoting advanced prototyping of disruptive technologies within the labs so the S&T community can prove these technologies work to generate demand from future acquisition programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require it to define, in policy or guidance, a science and technology framework that includes promoting advanced prototyping of disruptive technologies within the labs. In December 2019, a senior official within the Office of the USD(R&E) reported that the Emerging Capability Technology Development (ECTD) program is one framework USD(R&E) uses to promote the prototyping of disruptive technologies within the labs. Under this framework, USD(R&E) co-funds and co-sponsors projects with Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and the military department laboratories. An integrated management team leads the evaluation and demonstration of technologies and connects technology managers with acquisition programs in the Combatant Commands and the military departments. The senior official further reported that USD(R&E) leverages Rapid Prototyping Funds (RPFs) and Rapid Prototyping Programs (RPPs) to promote and prove advanced demonstrations in military department laboratories. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To enable the department to enhance its visibility over contractor personnel for whom it may become responsible in the event of contingency and other applicable operations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, update accountability guidance clarifying the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for in a steady-state environment.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2020, has not yet taken steps to implement it. DOD stated that DOD Instruction 3020.41, Operational Contract Support, is being updated, and will include guidance on the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. The department also stated it would update Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3150.13C, Joint Personnel Reporting Structure-Personnel Manual, to clarify the types of contractor personnel that are to be accounted for. As of September 2020, neither of these guidance documents had been updated. This recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that combatant commands are not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, develop and issue guidance that clarifies the foreign-vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including the operational conditions under which a foreign-vendor vetting cell should be established.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation but as of September 2020, has not implemented it. In its response to our report, DOD agreed that the development and issuance of overarching guidance and partially concurs with the development and issuance of guidance that clarifies the foreign vendor vetting steps or process that should be established at each combatant command, including operational conditions under which a foreign vendor vetting cell should be established. In April 2018, DOD issued Directive-Type Memorandum 18-002, Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy and Authorization of Additional Access to Records. In August 2020, DOD officials said that they had drafted department-wide vendor vetting guidance (now known as vendor threat mitigation), but had not yet issued it. Since the guidance has not been issued, the recommendation will remain open at this time.

Recommendation: To ensure that PACOM is not contracting with entities that may be connected to or supporting prohibited organizations, while awaiting DOD guidance on vendor vetting, the Secretary of Defense should direct the PACOM commander to consider developing vendor vetting guidance as other combatant commands have done, to prepare for the event that PACOM becomes actively engaged in hostilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, but as of September 2019, has not yet taken the steps necessary to implement it.. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help Army leadership obtain the information needed to evaluate and improve contracting operations, the Secretary of the Army should ensure the ASA(ALT) and DASA(P) establish a standard methodology for Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting (PARCs) to calculate the cost savings they report in CER briefings; and ensure PARCs from the National Guard Bureau, U.S. Army Medical Command, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers use the methodology to report their respective cost savings.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) officials indicated that organizations can determine cost savings attributable to contracting utilizing the Virtual Contracting Enterprise. However, this method is not formalized or documented in policy or guidance, and DASA(P) officials have not incorporated cost savings attributable to contracting into the CERs. We continue to believe that the Army should implement a CER metric to evaluate cost savings attributable to contracting activities.

Recommendation: To help Army leadership obtain the information needed to evaluate and improve contracting operations, the Secretary of the Army should ensure the ASA(ALT) and DASA(P) identify an effective means to collect and report contractor performance data.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) officials noted that the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the system for processing and collecting contractor performance information, but also expressed that the information contained in the system may not be reliable for assessing contractor performance. The information contained in CPARS is subjective and has had thousands of overdue required entries. The DASA(P) officials subsequently stated that DOD made improvements to CPARS based on a 2017 DOD Inspector General report. However, the officials have not provided any information identifying specific improvements DOD made, or evidence that CPARS is now an effective means to collect and report contractor performance data.

Recommendation: To help Army leadership obtain the information needed to evaluate and improve contracting operations, the Secretary of the Army should ensure the ASA(ALT) accurately determines the department's contracting workforce requirements in accordance with the Army's needs.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. DASA(P) is in the process of implementing talent management metrics through its Contracting Enterprise Review (CER) briefings. To this end, the 2nd quarter, fiscal year 2020 CER briefing included information about skill-based hiring and flexibilities for tailored training. However, the CER briefing did not address the department's contracting workforce requirements. We continue to believe that the ASA(ALT) should accurately determine the department's contracting workforce requirements in accordance with the Army's needs.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should conduct a comprehensive assessment to better understand the resources necessary for the requirements development process and determine the extent to which the shortfalls can be addressed given other funding priorities.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. Previously, Army officials told GAO that they planned to implement this recommendation after the new Army Futures Command-which currently manages capabilities development for the Army-became fully operational. Although this command became fully operational in July 2019, Army officials stated that more time is needed to fully coordinate and implement this recommendation. The Army Futures Command will work with the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency to assess the capabilities development workforce focused on requirements prior to programs entering the system development phase. Army officials estimate that this assessment will be completed in March 2021. In June 2020, GAO staff received a brief status update from the Army PAO who confirmed that this is still the plan.

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: To improve the management of the Armed Forces Sports Program and better determine whether the program is achieving its desired results, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that measure the desired outcomes for the program and, at a minimum, demonstrate linkage to the program's goals or mission, have a measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to demonstrate program performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that the Armed Forces Sports Council approved performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program at a council meeting held in April 2018. Officials said the approved performance measures went into effect in January 2019 in conjunction with the Armed Forces Sports Program's 2019 calendar year. Officials said that the baseline year for the performance measures is 2019 which they are currently collecting data for. Officials plan to provide an update on the program once they have collected and reviewed the 2019 baseline year performance measures. Additionally, officials said that OSD is working to update DOD Instruction 1330.04 to require the Armed Forces Sports Council to develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program and review and track performance metrics annually. The DOD Instruction language has been updated and is currently pending review prior to the start of formal coordination.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD program managers have the necessary information to maintain complete visibility and accountability of ITEF-funded equipment in SCIP, the Secretary of Defense should identify the root causes, such as potential interoperability and data reporting issues within SCIP and other DOD data systems, for why DOD components are not ensuring that ITEF-funded equipment transportation dates are captured in SCIP.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD was in the process of developing a plan to address this recommendation. GAO is continuing to monitor DOD's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD program managers have the necessary information to maintain complete visibility and accountability of ITEF-funded equipment in SCIP, the Secretary of Defense should develop an action plan with associated milestones and time frames for addressing the root causes for why DOD components are not ensuring that ITEF-funded equipment transportation dates are captured in SCIP.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD was in the process of developing a plan to address this recommendation. GAO is continuing to monitor DOD's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD program managers have the necessary information to maintain complete visibility and accountability of ITEF-funded equipment in SCIP, the Secretary of Defense should develop written procedures that specify under which data field ITEF-funded equipment transfer dates should be captured in the Enhanced Freight Tracking System in SCIP.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. The department commented that the relevant organizations have most, if not all, of the written procedures that are necessary for reporting these dates in the Enhanced Freight Tracking System. However, it would coordinate with all interested parties to update these procedures if needed. As of October 2019, GAO was continuing to monitor DOD's progress in addressing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD program managers have the necessary information to maintain complete visibility and accountability of ITEF-funded equipment in SCIP, the Secretary of Defense should update the 1st Theater Sustainment Command's (1st TSC) written standard operating procedures to include the 1st TSC commander's verbal order requiring the inclusion of unique equipment case identifier information for ITEF-funded equipment on transfer documentation.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD officials said they had updated the 1st TSC's written standard operating procedures to include the 1st TSC's commander's verbal order, and GAO was in the process of obtaining documentation of these changes.

Recommendation: To increase its assurance that PTSD and TBI are appropriately considered prior to separating certain servicemembers from the military for misconduct, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Air Force and Navy to address inconsistencies with DOD policy in their policies related to training servicemembers, including officers, on how to identify mild TBI symptoms in the deployed setting.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: At the time of report publication DOD indicated it did not concur with this recommendation. However after publication, the department indicated it concurred with the recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD is continuing to take actions to address this recommendation. When actions have been completed, GAO will update the status of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase its assurance that PTSD and TBI are appropriately considered prior to separating certain servicemembers from the military for misconduct, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the military services routinely monitor adherence to policies related to screening certain servicemembers for PTSD and TBI prior to separation for misconduct.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2018, the department indicated that it was addressing the recommendation by requiring the military services to submit a report in March 2018 and March 2019 on how they are monitoring adherence to policies related to screening certain servicemembers for PTSD and TBI prior to separation for misconduct. In August 2020, the department indicated it completed a cycle of compliance reporting by the military services in April 2020. DOD stated it would conduct a final compliance reporting cycle in March 2021. GAO maintains that monitoring of compliance on a routine basis (i.e., ongoing) is necessary and will keep the recommendation open until the department indicates that routine monitoring will occur.

Recommendation: To increase its assurance that PTSD and TBI are appropriately considered prior to separating certain servicemembers from the military for misconduct, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the military services routinely monitor adherence to policies related to training servicemembers, including officers, on how to identify mild TBI symptoms in the deployed setting.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, the department is continuing to take actions to address this recommendation. When actions have been completed, GAO will update the status of the recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase its assurance that PTSD and TBI are appropriately considered prior to separating certain servicemembers from the military for misconduct, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that the military services routinely monitor adherence to policies related to counseling about VA benefits and services during the process of separating certain servicemembers for misconduct.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2018, the department indicated that it was addressing the recommendation by requiring the military services to submit a report in March 2018 and March 2019 on how they are monitoring adherence to policies related to counseling about VA benefits and services during the process of separating certain servicemembers for misconduct. In August 2020, the department indicated it completed a cycle of compliance reporting by the military services in April 2020. DOD stated it would conduct a final compliance reporting cycle in March 2021. GAO maintains that monitoring of compliance on a routine basis (i.e., ongoing) is necessary and will keep the recommendation open until the department indicates that routine monitoring will occur.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should conduct periodic reviews of the processes DOD components follow to approve agreements and take oversight actions, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would implement a new standard operating procedure for DOD's Mentor-Protege Program component program managers. According to DOD, the new standard operating procedure would require each component program manager to provide quarterly program management review reports to DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, in addition to annual and monthly reporting, as required by Appendix I of DOD's policies and procedures for the Mentor-Protege Program. DOD's new Standard Operating Procedure would also centralize the implementation of the Mentor Protege Program and, according to DOD, would create process efficiency, and enhanced oversight of the program. The new Standard Operating Procedure would also include a new standardized checklist each Mentor-Protege Program component would utilize to approve mentor protege agreements. The standardized checklist would also include the company North American Industry Classification System code, a mentor approval letter, and a fully completed copy of the mentor protege agreement signed by both parties. Last, DOD would then determine program improvement, once the aforementioned controls are implemented and monitored for effectiveness. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that DOD's Pilot Mentor-Protege Program meets its mission, the Director, DOD's Office of Small Business Programs, should complete actions to develop performance goals and related measures that are consistent with the program's stated purpose.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of Small Business Programs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation and stated that Mentor-Protege Program components would establish goals for the Mentor Protege Program and those goals would be focused on the Industrial Base and Technology Transfer categories. In addition, DOD stated that it would establish additional surveillance requirements to ensure prime and subcontract opportunities are afforded to the proteges and that instituting a baseline performance goal for all components will ensure the Program achieves the intent desired by Congress. As of August 2018, DOD had not provided GAO with documentation of the new goals or standard operating procedure. GAO will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in the movement of Marine Corps units by, for example, reconsidering when units should move to Guam to minimize leaving facilities vacant.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Marine Corps' plans for the movement of units from Okinawa to Guam has considered many factors, including, among others, the capabilities required to support Pacific Command and the logistical requirements associated with the movement of forces. In March 2020, DOD stated that the Marine Corps and Pacific Command have done extensive planning and analysis to determine how best to posture, move, and support distributed III Marine Expeditionary Force Marines. However, as of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of this analysis. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in training needs in Iwakuni, Hawaii, and CNMI by, for example, identifying other suitable training areas.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it has already conducted an extensive analysis of training needs. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in reduction in runway length at the Futenma Replacement Facility by, for example, selecting other runways that would support mission requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD had not identified any additional runways and stated that this is a Government of Japan responsibility. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To improve the Department of Defense's ability to maintain its capability in the Asia-Pacific region, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to resolve selected identified capability deficiencies associated with the relocation in challenges in Australia regarding seasonal changes and biosecurity requirements that affect equipment downtime by, for example, deciding on a location for the wet season and identifying a solution for biosecurity requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD stated that no new decisions have been made regarding the Australia rotation. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To provide DOD with reliable information on potential sources of delays for the design and construction of infrastructure in Guam, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to update the Marine Corps' integrated master schedule for Guam so that it meets the comprehensive, well-constructed, and credible characteristics for a reliable schedule. For example, the update to the schedule should include resources for nonconstruction activities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In March 2020, DOD stated that the updated integrated master schedule for Guam conforms to the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide and accounts for the best practices of a reliable schedule. However, as of May 2020, we have not received an updated integrated master schedule that meets the criteria for a reliable schedule.

Recommendation: To provide DOD and Congress with more-reliable information to inform funding decisions associated with the relocation of Marines to Guam, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to revise the cost estimates for Guam to address all best practices established by GAO's cost estimating guide. Specifically, the revisions to the cost estimates should include: a unifying Work Breakdown Structure, risk and sensitivity analyses, and an independent cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD nonconcurred with this recommendation. In March 2020, DOD stated that the department does not accept the assertion that GAO's best practices for cost estimates are universally applicable to a wide range of activities that includes military construction, acquisition, or basing. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To provide DOD and Congress with more-reliable information to inform funding decisions associated with the relocation of Marines to Hawaii and the establishment of a rotational presence in Australia, the Secretary of Defense should direct the appropriate entities to revise the DOD cost estimates for Hawaii to address all best practices for the comprehensive characteristic established by the GAO cost estimating guide, specifically to capture entire life-cycle costs and develop a Work Breakdown Structure.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD stated that it continues to update its cost estimates for the Hawaii program in line with GAO's cost estimating guide but did not agree that detailed cost estimates are required at this early planning stage to make decisions in the 2026 timeframe and beyond. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To provide DOD and Congress with more-reliable information to inform funding decisions associated with the relocation of Marines to Hawaii and the establishment of a rotational presence in Australia, the Secretary of Defense should revise the DOD cost estimates for Australia to address all best practices for the comprehensive characteristic established by the GAO cost estimating guide, specifically to capture entire life-cycle costs and develop a Work Breakdown Structure.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, DOD stated that it continues to update its cost estimates for the Australia program in line with GAO's cost estimating guide. However, DOD stated that since Australia will build or provide much of the infrastructure enhancements in support of the Marine Corps, cost estimates will not incorporate the construction costs. As of May 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation. We continue to believe the recommendation is valid and will monitor DOD's efforts to address it.

Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services, to explore cost-effective approaches to collect and report S&I pay program data for the Reserve Components.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its initial response, DOD noted that it will maintain its focus on the recruiting and retention pays for both the active and reserve components, and will continue to work with the Reserve Components to strengthen the collection of the remaining special and incentive pays. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to review whether S&I pay programs have incorporated key principles of effective human capital management and used resources efficiently, and prioritize and complete the establishment of measures for the efficient use of resources.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that DOD does use key principles of effective human capital management, and although not articulated as GAO's principles, DOD's and GAO's principles share common goals and results. In addition, DOD stated that it will support the opportunity to review and improve upon the principles and methods to assess the efficiency of its S&I pay programs, and, where appropriate, will incorporate these principles in future DOD policy issuances and updates. In May 2018, DOD stated that it believed it was in compliance with this recommendation and that the action was complete. DOD stated that this assessment was based on our finding that most of the Department's S&I pay programs either met or partially met the key principles of effective human capital management. But our finding was on select pay programs. Further, DOD's response did not document what actions the Department has taken to ensure all programs fully meet the key principles. As of November 2019 DOD had not taken action on this recommendation. We continue to believe that fully implementing the key principles of effective human capital management that we identified would help DOD and the services to ensure that S&I pay programs are effectively designed and that resources are optimized for the greatest return on investment.

Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to routinely assess the impact of non-monetary incentive approaches on retention behavior and on the necessary levels of S&I pays.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2017, DOD had submitted a proposal to conduct a study focused on aviation officers that will examine the military services' methodologies used to accomplish their retention goals to determine the primary reasons aviation officers remain or leave the service and the degree to which these reasons affect their retention decisions. According to DOD officials, a portion of the study will consider the interaction between monetary and non-monetary incentives such as duty assignments, flying opportunities, reduced administrative burdens, and quality of life. In May 2018, DOD stated that the Military Departments continue to utilize non-monetary incentives as their first approach to access and retain quality servicemembers. DOD added that these incentives consist of choice of career path, duty assignment, selective military training, educational benefits, as well as the career intermission program. DOD noted that the Army's Career Satisfaction Program is just one example of using non-monetary pay incentives to improve retention. According to DOD, this program increases the retention of Army officers at no additional cost to the Army by offering academy cadets and senior ROTC cadets the choice of occupational specialty and assignment location upon commissioning in exchange for extending their active duty service obligation for an additional 3 years. DOD also stated that the Navy currently uses both monetary and non-monetary incentives to retain its surface warfare officer (SWO) community to ensure it retains adequate numbers of officers to fill critical SWO Department Head positions in the rank of Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander. The Department concluded that it believes the recommendation is closed, as it has offered and continues to offer non-monetary incentives as part of its S&l pay program, and continues to encourage the use of non-monetary incentives as an alternative to cash incentives. While the programs DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To facilitate DOD's oversight of the military services' S&I pay programs, and to fully ensure the effectiveness of these programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Military Departments to develop approaches to directly target Selective Reenlistment Bonuses to cybersecurity skill sets.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In DOD's initial response, it stated that the services are responsible for developing their personnel requirements in order to meet individual service needs and that it has provided the services with the necessary staffing tools to recruit and retain servicemembers in the cybersecurity skill sets. DOD also noted that it is crucial for the services to retain their flexibility to utilize these pays and benefits to address service-specific shortfalls within their cybersecurity workforce and noted that it will assist the services in growing and maintaining their cybersecurity workforce through existing and future DOD policies. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that the services have responsibility for developing their manpower requirements and employing the necessary manpower tools, such as bonuses and incentives, to achieve their goals, including those for the cybersecurity workforce. DOD added that the current suite of special and incentive pays already provides the services the necessary authorities and flexibilities to access and retain servicemembers in their cybersecurity communities. DOD concluded that it believed their actions to address this recommendation were complete. We recognize that the services are responsible for their specific personnel requirements and that flexibility is important. However, as noted in our report, each military service has assigned cybersecurity personnel to military occupational specialties that include other types of personnel skill sets, such as intelligence or information technology. As a result, because the services offer SRBs by military occupational specialty, the services may award SRBs to specialties that include non-cybersecurity personnel for whom the SRB is unneeded. Therefore, we continue to believe that there are benefits to developing approaches to target cybersecurity personnel in non-designated cybersecurity fields and that this recommendation should remain open. As of November 2019, DOD had not taken additional actions on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the Air Force in its effort to address UAS pilot shortfalls, and to help ensure that the Air Force strategies to address UAS pilot shortages are tailored to address remaining issues, such as the significant amount of pilots who are temporarily assigned to the UAS pilot career, the limited amount of cadet interest in the UAS pilot career, and the workload of UAS pilots, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to revise the Get Well Plan to address these issues.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: Although the Air Force has taken some steps to address issues such as the use of pilots temporarily assigned to the UAS pilot career and has accelerated its efforts to increase recruit interest in this particular field, high operational tempo, manning shortages and increased workload among UAS pilots still exist. As noted earlier, in July 2018, the Air Force established a new office within its headquarters a focal point for overseeing RPA personnel matters throughout the Air Force and it established a career field manager (CFM) specifically for RPA personnel, placing the career field on par with manned aircraft pilot career fields. These latest efforts show that the Air Force is taking actions to address challenges to the RPA community beyond the stated goals of the Get Well Plan that we identified and on an enterprise-wide level. Because the Air Force efforts are newly instituted and it remains to be seen how UAS aircrew workloads will be affected, we believe that as of November 2019 this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To help the Air Force in its effort to address UAS pilot shortfalls, and to help the Air Force ensure that its strategies are having the intended effects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to monitor the extent to which that achieving the human capital goals in its strategy helps the Air Force achieve its programmatic goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to headquarters Air Force officials, the Air Force has three program goals that are related to addressing UAS pilot shortfalls: to (1) meet combat demand, (2) staff enough personnel to UAS units to allow UAS pilots time to train and take part in development activities, and (3) provide surge UAS combat capabilities when needed. As of September 2019, the Air Force does not have enough personnel in UAS units to allow UAS pilots time to train and take part in developmental activities-known as being in "dwell." As of November 2019, Air Force officials state that they are able to "meet combat demand" but are not able to provide enough manpower to "surge UAS combat capabilities when needed." Therefore, we believe this recommendation should remain open.

Recommendation: To help the Air Force in its effort to address UAS pilot shortfalls, and to help the Air Force ensure that it is poised to meet future needs for UAS pilots, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to explore the potential use of additional flexibilities that would enable it to increase the number of UAS pilots in its workforce.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In a March 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force stated it had developed a deliberate plan to integrate enlisted pilots in the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAS as it provided the ideal environment to expand mission flexibility. Further, as another way to build capability in support of human capital strategies by using flexibilities, an Air Force selection board met in July 2017 to consider total force officer as well as civilian candidates for various test pilot positions to include test UAS pilots. Finally, the Air Force is seeking legislative changes to allow the Air Reserve Component to perform full time, 24/7, 365 operational missions such as the UAS mission, in Active Guard Reserve status. Additionally, in July 2018, Air Force is in the process of establishing a new division to be the Headquarters focal point for overseeing RPA personnel matters throughout the Air Force and they also stated the Air Force established a career field manager (CFM) specifically for RPA personnel, placing the career field on par with manned aircraft pilot career fields. Further, the Air Force is working on an initiative that would enable it to provide UAS pilots with "dwell time"-a time during which servicemembers are at their home station during which they are able to take leave, attend training, and recuperate. As of November 2019, the Air Force had not implemented this initiative. Additionally, the Air Force has increased the maximum annual retention pay for UAS pilots (and all other pilots) to $35,000. While the Air Force has taken some steps, it is too early to tell whether these steps will result in effective workforce planning outcomes that reduce Air Force UAS pilot shortages. Therefore, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army identify challenges that UAS pilots face in completing their training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to collect feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units, such as by surveying, or conducting focus groups with them.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its initial comments, DOD stated that incorporating feedback from the field is already an element of the Army's strategy for improving the sustainability, maturity, and health of its UAS workforce. DOD stated that our findings will reinforce the importance of using feedback to improve and refine the Army's overall strategy. In September 2019, Army Headquarters officials reiterated previous statements that they made that the Army has multiple agencies and systems that gather feedback to refine and improve UAS programs. However, the Army has not collected feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units via surveys, focus groups, to help the Army identify challenges that UAS pilots face in completing their training.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army identify challenges that UAS pilots face in completing their training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to incorporate such feedback into the Army's strategy to address UAS training shortfalls.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, and in its initial comments, DOD stated that incorporating feedback from the field is already an element of the Army's strategy for improving the sustainability, maturity, and health of its UAS workforce. DOD stated that our findings will reinforce the importance of using feedback to improve and refine the Army's overall strategy. In July 2018, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army has multiple agencies and systems that gather feedback to incorporate and improve UAS programs. The officials listed a number of the systems in place to gather feedback on UAS units. However, the Army did not describe any efforts to collect feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units such as by surveying them or conducting focus groups with them. In September 2019, Army officials reiterated their 2018 comments and stated that Army has a number of the systems in place to gather feedback on UAS units. However, the Army has not collected feedback from UAS pilots in UAS units such as by surveying them or conducting focus groups with them and incorporated such feedback into an Army strategy to address UAS training shortfalls.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help ensure that Army Shadow units meet minimum training requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to revise its strategy to address UAS training shortfalls to ensure that it is fully tailored to address training issues and address factors such as lack of adequate facilities, lack of access to airspace, and the inability to fly more than one UAS at a time.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Army revise its strategy to address UAS training shortfalls to ensure that it is fully tailored to address training issues and address factors such as lack of adequate facilities, lack of access to airspace, and the inability to fly more than one UAS at a time. DOD stated that the Army has already taken steps to continuously improve its training strategy and that our findings will underline the importance of those initiatives, but that additional direction related to our recommendation is not necessary. In their July 2018 written update, Army officials responded to this recommendation by discussing a regulation regarding readiness reporting; however, the response did not clarify how the regulation might address our recommendation. As of November 2019, the Army has not issued an updated UAS strategy that addresses UAS training shortfalls including a lack of adequate facilities, lack of access to airspace, and the inability to fly more than one UAS at a time.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for UAS pilot training on sound evidence and to help it take advantage of the key benefits associated with effective personnel selection that could include reducing training costs, improving job performance, improving retention of qualified personnel, enabling leadership development, and enhancing organizational effectiveness, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to validate that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is an effective predictor of UAS pilot candidate performance in UAS pilot training and job performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Army validate that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is an effective predictor of UAS pilot candidate performance in UAS pilot training and job performance. DOD stated that it believes that the current graduation rate of soldiers from its UAS pilot school of 98 percent is an indication that the existing personnel resource predictors and practices are sufficient. It also stated that periodic re-validation is prudent, but specific direction to do so is not necessary. In its July 2018 written update about this recommendation, Army officials stated that the successful graduation rate from UAS Advanced Individual Training and suggested that this graduation rate may indicate that the existing Army approach is adequate. As we stated in our report, Army officials told us that senior Army leaders pressure officials at the Army UAS pilot schoolhouse to ensure that UAS pilot candidates make it through training. As a result, graduation rates may not provide the Army with reliable evidence that its approach to selecting personnel to serve as UAS pilots is providing the Army with personnel who have the aptitude for this career. Validating that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is an effective predictor of training and job performance of UAS pilot is an important step that would help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for the UAS pilot career field on sound evidence. As of November 2019, the Army continued to maintain that the successful graduation rate from UAS Advanced Individual Training and suggests that the existing Army approach is adequate.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for UAS pilot training on sound evidence and to help it take advantage of the key benefits associated with effective personnel selection that could include reducing training costs, improving job performance, improving retention of qualified personnel, enabling leadership development, and enhancing organizational effectiveness, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to assess existing research that has been performed that identifies UAS pilot competencies.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendations that the Army assess existing research that has been performed that identifies UAS pilot competencies. In its comments, DOD stated that incorporating findings regarding UAS pilot competencies is already an integral part of both workforce and community management and that effective and efficient resource management, as well as force shaping and management processes, will help ensure that the Army's selection of candidates is consistent with the findings of existing research in this area. DOD stated that it does not believe it is necessary to provide additional direction or guidance to the Army to leverage existing research that identifies UAS pilot competencies. In it's July 2018 written update about this recommendation, Army officials indicated that the Army will assess existing research on UAS operator competencies to improve UAS operator selection. As of November 2019, the Army continued to express interest in assessing existing research on UAS operator competencies to improve UAS operator candidate selection.

Recommendation: To help the Army in its effort to address UAS unit training shortfalls, and to help the Army ensure that it is basing its decisions to select individuals for UAS pilot training on sound evidence and to help it take advantage of the key benefits associated with effective personnel selection that could include reducing training costs, improving job performance, improving retention of qualified personnel, enabling leadership development, and enhancing organizational effectiveness, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to incorporate relevant findings from such research into the Army's approach for selecting UAS pilot candidates, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendations that the Army incorporate relevant findings from such research into the Army's approach for selecting UAS pilot candidates, as appropriate. DOD stated that incorporating findings regarding UAS pilot competencies is already an integral part of both workforce and community management and that effective and efficient resource management, as well as force shaping and management processes, will help ensure that the Army's selection of candidates is consistent with the findings of existing research in this area. DOD stated that it does not believe it is necessary to provide additional direction or guidance to the Army to leverage existing research that identifies UAS pilot competencies. In its July 2018 written update on this recommendation, Army officials indicated that the Army will consider a cost benefit analysis on techniques that would potentially improve a process, product, or result related to selecting UAS pilot candidates. Officials went on to state that once the assessment is complete, the Army will incorporate relevant findings into the approach for selecting UAS pilot candidates. As of November 2019, the Army expressed interest in incorporating findings from relevant research into processes for selecting UAS pilot candidates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to incorporate medical screening questions specific to gambling disorder as part of a systematic screening process across DOD, such as DOD's annual Periodic Health Assessment, for behavioral and mental-health issues.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with this recommendation. However, the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act mandated that DOD implement this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had modified the Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS) to include questions on gambling and DOD and the Services are in the process of updating the electronic Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) assessment forms to capture the gambling screening data required by the legislation. Once the PHA is updated to include the gambling screening data, we will be able to close this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to update DOD Instruction 1010.04, Problematic Substance Use by DOD Personnel, to explicitly include gambling disorder as defined in the 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD stated that this guidance is still in internal DOD coordination. Moreover, guidance related to gambling disorder screening, referral, and treatment needs to be coordinated with the Addictive Substance Misuse Advisory Committee (ASMAC) before issuance, which is anticipated to be July 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to update Army Regulation 600-85, The Army Substance Abuse Program, to explicitly include gambling disorder.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, the Army did not have any updates to provide on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to update Naval Operations Instruction 5350.4D, Navy Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, to explicitly include gambling disorder.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, Navy officials stated that the draft Navy instruction was returned back to the Navy's Drug Detection and Deterrence Program Office to add language regarding the Secretary of the Navy's ban on hemp/CBD products that was announced this month. The Navy has added the language and pushed the instruction out to the main stakeholders for coordination. It is due back to the Director, Navy Staff no later than 30 August 2019 where it will go back into the queue for signature. Navy officials anticipate signature sometime later this fall.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should update Commandant Instruction M6000.1F, Coast Guard Medical Manual, to classify gambling disorder as an addiction and not as an impulse control issue.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: The U.S. Coast Guard/DHS concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, the Coast Guard stated that updates to this manual are ongoing. According to Coast Guard officials, including gambling disorder in this manual is one of many significant updates the program is adjudicating for this manual and it's a lengthy clearance process. No timeline was provided for expected issuance.

Recommendation: In order to help ensure that DOD and the military departments are providing timely and consistent information on privately financed construction projects to Congress under DOD Instruction 7700.18, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--to identify the categories of privately financed construction projects, including gifts of major construction, that should be reported through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18; revise DOD Instruction 7700.18 and any other related policies, as appropriate, to clarify which project types are to be included in and excluded from this reporting process; and require that the military departments update their relevant policies to incorporate the revised policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it will make clarifications in the next revision of DOD Instruction 7700.18 to clarify the types of privately financed major construction projects that should be reported through the process outlined in the instruction. In July 2020 an official from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy) said that DOD had completed a draft update of the instruction that included language implementing GAO's recommendation. The official also stated that DOD Instruction 7700.18 is interrelated with other DOD guidance which is also being updated. DOD plans to complete the updates to all the relevant policies by June 2021.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that Congress receives all desired information on all gifts of major construction in a timely manner, the Secretary of Defense--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--should identify the lead organization(s) within DOD that will be responsible for developing DOD-wide policy for reporting gifts of major construction that are not reported through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that there was already an official, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, responsible for developing policies related to gifts of real property, including major construction. However, DOD has not formally assigned responsibility to the Under Secretary (now the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment) for developing DOD-wide policy on reporting gifts of major construction not covered by the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that Congress receives all desired information on all gifts of major construction in a timely manner, the Secretary of Defense--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--should establish DOD-wide policy, as appropriate, on congressional notification of gifts of major construction to cover all such gifts that are not to be reported to Congress through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18, and require that the military departments update their gift acceptance policies--and any other relevant policies--to incorporate procedures to support DOD's notification requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that Congress has provided a statutory framework for the department to accept gifts, including gifts of construction, without stipulating any reporting requirements. However, this is inconsistent with DOD Instruction 7700.18, which states that construction projects funded by donations are subject to reporting to Congress. The military departments have been accepting gifts of major construction and reporting some of them to Congress while not reporting others. If DOD does not take action to clarify its policy on reporting such gifts, Congress is likely to continue receiving inconsistent and incomplete information, and to lack an explanation of the scope of the information it is receiving. This in turn may impair Congressional oversight over such projects and their potential effects on future maintenance funding requirements since some projects will not be brought to Congress' attention. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

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 better ensure spaceport operators' understanding of FAA's financial responsibility regulations for commercial space launches, the Secretary of Transportation should ensure that the FAA Administrator provides additional communication to clarify FAA's interpretation of the financial responsibility regulations for commercial space launches. The forms of communication could include, among other things, issuing additional guidance or using other forums to clarify when a spaceport operator is a third party to a launch and when it is not.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2018, FAA officials said that they were working towards implementing the recommendation, but did not have documented efforts at this time and do not have an estimated completion date.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to better enable personnel to provide intelligence inputs to their portfolios of acquisition programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to establish certifications that include having these personnel complete required training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation in 2019. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to facilitate implementation of improved processes and procedures developed by the Acquisition Intelligence Requirements Task Force and by the Air Force for the integration of intelligence into major defense acquisition programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to revise relevant guidance and procedures--including DOD Instruction 5000.02 and DOD Directive 5250.01-- require that intelligence mission data at the acquisition program, service, and department levels be prioritized.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation in 2019. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to better ensure that DOD obtains useful feedback from stakeholders and the intended users of the Validated Online Lifecycle Threat tool, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to instruct the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to develop a communication plan for the tool that includes plans for communicating with and obtaining feedback from stakeholders and intended users such as acquisition program offices and personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation by the end of 2018. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

Recommendation: To enhance DOD's efforts to better integrate and improve intelligence support to major defense acquisition programs, and to ensure that it fulfills the needs of acquisition programs and the intelligence community and works as intended, the Secretary of Defense should direct--as appropriate--the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and/or the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with one another, to assess the need for the Acquisition Intelligence Support Assessment tool and, if validated by this assessment, define this tool's requirements for development and identify the entity responsible for providing oversight and funding for its continued development, implementation, and operation.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with the recommendation. DOD provided corrective action plans that show they expect to complete efforts that will address this recommendation sometime in the future. We will continue to monitor the status of DOD's actions and whether these actions address the intent of our recommendations.

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 improve the management of DOD's credentialing program and better determine whether the program is achieving its desired results, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement program performance measures that include key attributes, such as a baseline and goals, that can be used to assess performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to develop and implement performance measures for its credentialing program. In its response to the recommendation, DOD stated that servicemembers are not required to earn credentials and more than half of the credentials earned by servicemembers are voluntary. Therefore, establishing criteria that might create an incentive to force servicemembers into earning voluntary credentials would be counterproductive. DOD also stated that a basic reporting system is in place that captures credential attainment and associated costs that provides basic information to gauge the program's performance. As of April 2020, the department still does not plan to develop performance measures for the program.

Recommendation: To fully assess the size and composition of the medical force, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to conduct a new analysis of the required number of active-duty and civilian medical personnel that mitigates known limitations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. In response to a provision in Senate Report 115-125, we assessed DOD's interim and final draft responses to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to assess the required number of wartime medical and dental personnel. In our ensuing February 2019 report, we found that DOD had not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress. Specifically, leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. We found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. Further, although not required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD's assessment did not include civilian medical personnel. Until DOD completes such an analysis, it cannot be assured that its medical force is appropriately sized.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to take steps to identify and mitigate limitations regarding the standard for maintaining providers' clinical skills, including improving the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload and conducting an analytically rigorous calculation of active-duty providers' time devoted to military-specific responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In February 2019, we reported that DOD had begun work on a metric to assess the clinical readiness of providers, but noted that the department's methodology was limited. In particular, the methodology did not provide complete, accurate, and consistent data or fully demonstrate results. Further, although DOD provided documentation in February 2020 outlining the medical specialties to which its clinical readiness metric would apply, it has not fully budgeted for the cost of implementing the metric. DOD's July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 notes steps taken to assess the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload, but does not address the time active-duty providers devote to military-specific responsibilities. Until DOD addresses these issues, its efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards will remain limited.

Recommendation: To help achieve DOD's goals for transferring health care into its own facilities and increasing the productivity of active-duty medical providers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to develop a strategy for achieving these goals that reflects the leading practices of effective federal strategic planning.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen ongoing efforts within DOD to address the Study's recommendations to use the provider model outputs to inform execution of health care delivery and to refine the model for future use, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to modify DOD's model to reflect the military service of the physicians and military treatment facilities included in the model.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020 DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD stated in response to this recommendation that facilities in several large Military Health System (MHS) markets are staffed in a multi-service manner. While this is an important point, it remains true that, as the report notes, DOD's model "assumed uniformed providers were interchangeable," and that such an approach does not reflect the single-service nature of most medical treatment facilities within the MHS. Until DOD's model reflects this, the results of its approach will continue to be limited.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to describe steps taken to assess the reliability of data supporting the assessment, including, at a minimum, the sources of data, data limitations, and efforts to test data reliability.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD included the sources of its data and some data limitations, but not efforts to test data reliability. Until DOD fully incorporates assessments of data reliability into its analysis of future changes to the Military Health System, such as its implementation plan Section 703, it will continue to lack assurance that its approach is fully supported by reliable information.

Recommendation: To strengthen any future assessments of additional changes to DOD's network of military treatment facilities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to include in any accompanying cost estimates an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, DOD's plan to restructure MTFs in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD concluded that civilian health care was more cost-effective than care in its MTFs without considering other assumptions that could affect its conclusions. For example, DOD applied assumptions about the cost of military personnel salaries, MTF workloads, and reimbursement rates for TRICARE that likely underestimated the cost-effectiveness of MTFs. Until DOD's approach to assessing changes to its network of MTFs is accompanied by cost estimates with an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate, its approach will remain limited.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's awareness of how much O&M funding the department uses for construction projects to support contingency operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to track the universe and cost of ongoing and future contingency construction projects that are funded from O&M appropriations under section 2805 of Title 10, U.S. Code (unspecified minor military construction authority).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's ability to quickly fund contingency construction projects that are not ideally suited to the current standard Military Construction and Operation and Maintenance processes and time frames and reduce reliance on funding approaches that pose risks regarding the appropriate use of funding, negative operational impacts, and unnecessary duplication, DOD should evaluate and improve the use of existing processes and authorities to the extent possible; determine whether additional authorities are needed to support urgent construction needs; and revise existing departmental processes or seek additional authorities, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to help ensure that DOD limits demands on available resources to those necessary to meet contingency construction project requirements and communicates those requirements effectively, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, direct the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a control activity for documenting level-of-construction determinations before the Army Corps of Engineers designs the projects and estimates their costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to ensure that DOD avoids constructing facilities that may be unneeded to support U.S. forces and to comprehensively document the results of its reviews of ongoing construction projects when changes in mission requirements occur, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Commander of CENTCOM to develop implementing guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve the awareness of the combatant and service component commands' responsibilities to record and share lessons learned and to ensure that important contingency-construction-related lessons are recorded, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Commander of CENTCOM to revise Central Command Regulation 415-1 or issue other guidance as appropriate to specifically detail the role of the combatant command and service component commands in recording contingency construction lessons learned from the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the Joint Lessons Learned Information System.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: In light of potential concerns regarding the appropriate use of funding raised by several of the examples identified in this report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to review these and, as appropriate, other construction projects in the contingency environment presenting similar circumstances to ensure that funds were properly used.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.

Recommendation: To ensure that the department can implement readiness rebuilding efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to establish comprehensive readiness rebuilding goals to guide readiness rebuilding efforts and a strategy for implementing identified goals, to include resources needed to implement the strategy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation in our draft report. In our draft, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense provide direction to the U.S. Marine Corps, in addition to the Secretary of the Navy; DOD stated that separate guidance to the U.S. Marine Corps was unnecessary because the U.S. Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. We agreed, and revised our recommendation as we finalized our report for publishing. Otherwise, in its comments on this recommendation, DOD noted that the department was currently working to define the "ready for what" for the military services which would provide the target for their readiness recovery goals. Since we reported in 2016, the military services established both readiness rebuilding goals and a strategy for implementing them. Through the department's Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have identified key readiness issues that their respective forces face and actions to address these issues. These efforts are detailed every other quarter in reports to Congress. Since the establishment of the Readiness Recovery Framework, the military services have been revising their readiness rebuilding goals. GAO will continue to monitor their evolution, as well as the progress of DOD's Readiness Recovery Framework, before it closes this recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To strengthen efforts to mitigate earthquake risks to federal buildings, the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of GSA should (1) Define what constitutes an exceptionally high risk building, identify such buildings, and develop plans to mitigate those risks, including prioritizing associated funding requests as needed; and (2) To the extent practicable, prioritize and implement comprehensive seismic safety measures which could include earthquake drills, seismic safety inspections, and non-structural retrofits to decrease risks and reduce damage in federally-owned and -leased buildings in earthquake hazard areas.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In June 2019, DOD reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had developed a sophisticated risk assessment tool which could potentially be used to both define and assess exceptionally high risk buildings in a cost-effective manner. DOD said that it was in the process of determining the suitability of the tool for use by its components, and potentially other federal government partners. According to DOD, further action to address this recommendation will depend on both a favorable determination of the tool's suitability and the availability of funding to conduct assessments and complete the mitigation actions identified by the assessments. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to better integrate virtual training devices into operational training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to specify in Army guidance for developing virtual training device requirements that training developers consider and document the time available to train with the devices and intended usage rates to achieve training tasks and proficiency goals during operational training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, the Army had taken some steps to improve its guidance, as GAO recommended in August 2016, but did not plan to fully address the recommendation until 2021. Officials stated that the Army established target usage rates for existing virtual training devices and issued guidance and tracking tools for recording device usage. However, the Army had not modified the guidance, cited in GAO's August 2016 report, to require that training developers consider the amount of time available to train with or expected usage rates of new virtual training devices. According to Army officials, they will implement GAO's recommendation in a planned update to guidance on the justification and validation of new virtual training devices scheduled for 2021. By updating this guidance, the Army will have the information it requires to evaluate the amount of virtual training capabilities needed to achieve training tasks and proficiency goals during operational training.

Recommendation: To increase department-wide supply chain efficiencies and effectiveness in support of maintenance at the Army and Marine Corps depots and Navy shipyards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and the Secretaries of the Army and Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to assess through a comprehensive business case analysis-drawing on lessons learned from previous efforts-the costs and benefits of DLA managing the retail supply, storage, and distribution functions at the Army and Marine Corps depots and Navy shipyards.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD had designated the transfer of these retail functions as an operating priority and identified it as a key reform effort within logistics in the department. The Marine Corps has conducted its analysis and decided to transition additional supply, storage, and distribution functions to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) over a 4-year period, with all implementation activities scheduled to be complete by 2022. The Army continues to analyze requirements for the full transition of supply, storage, and distribution functions to DLA with final decisions to be made in late 2018. Lastly, the Navy and DLA are working on a strategic memorandum of understanding to guide decision on the role of DLA at the Navy shipyards, according to a senior DOD official. Without the Army and Navy finalizing its business case analyses, decision makers will not be positioned to make cost-effective decisions regarding supply operations at military depots.

Recommendation: To increase department-wide supply chain efficiencies and effectiveness in support of maintenance at the Army and Marine Corps depots and Navy shipyards, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and the Secretaries of the Army and Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to use the analysis to make a decision on the degree to which DLA should manage these functions at the Army and Marine Corps depots and Navy shipyards.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD had designated the transfer of these retail functions as an operating priority and identified it as a key reform effort within logistics in the department. The Marine Corps has conducted its analysis and decided to transition additional supply, storage, and distribution functions to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) over a 4-year period, with all implementation activities scheduled to be completed by 2022. However, the Army and Navy have not made any decisions regarding the additional transfer of supply, storage and distribution functions to DLA. Without the Army and Navy making decisions based on business case analyses on the degree to which additional supply, storage, and distribution functions will transfer to DLA, DOD will not be ensured that it is operating its supply operations at military depots in a cost-effective manner.

Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of supply and maintenance operations, in accordance with DOD guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop and implement metrics that measure the accuracy of planning factors, such as the schedule, bill of materials, and replacement factors, used for depot maintenance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD has begun to identify metrics that measure the accuracy of planning factors used for depot maintenance. However, these metrics are not scheduled to be implemented fully implemented in December 2018.

Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of supply and maintenance operations, in accordance with DOD guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to take action, as appropriate and necessary, to resolve any issues identified through measuring the accuracy of planning inputs in an effort to improve supply and depot maintenance operations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD has begun to identify metrics that measure the accuracy of planning factors used for depot maintenance. However, these metrics are not scheduled to be implemented fully implemented in December 2018. Thus, no actions have been taken to resolve any identified issues based on the results of the metrics.

Recommendation: To be able to assess the cost-effectiveness of supply and depot maintenance operations, in accordance with DOD supply chain management guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to take steps to develop and implement metrics, to the extent feasible, to measure and track disruption costs created by the lack of parts at depot maintenance industrial sites by, for example, establishing a team of supply and depot maintenance experts from DLA and the services to assess potential data sources, approaches, and methods.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD has begun to develop metrics that measure and track disruption costs created by the lack of parts at depot maintenance industrial sites. However, these metrics are not scheduled to be implemented until October 2018.

Recommendation: To be able to assess the cost-effectiveness of supply and depot maintenance operations, in accordance with DOD supply chain management guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to take action, as appropriate, to address any inefficiencies identified by the disruption cost metrics in supply and depot maintenance operations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD has begun to develop metrics that measure and track disruption costs created by the lack of parts at depot maintenance industrial sites. However, these metrics are not scheduled to be implemented until October 2018. Thus, no actions have been taken to resolve any identified issues based on the results of the metrics.

Recommendation: To improve transparency in allocating its limited resources, and to help ensure that its resource allocation decisions are the most effective ones for fulfilling its missions given existing risks, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should document how the risk assessments conducted were used to inform and support its annual asset allocation decisions.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated that both of these documents are currently under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 and is awaiting a reply. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the Standard Operational Planning Process (SOPP)/Global Force Management (GFM) Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. This change would further require an update of the SOPP/GFM Instruction. The COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. New Estimated Completion Date (ECD): June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To ensure that high priority mission activities are fully supported with the appropriate number of staff possessing the requisite mix of skills and abilities, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should develop a systematic process that prioritizes manpower requirements analyses for units that are the most critical for achieving mission needs.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: On December 14, 2016, the Coast Guard noted that it submitted two FY 2019 Resource Proposals to staff and equip the Manpower Requirements Determination Division to conduct the analysis as described in the recommendation. In April, 2016, the Coast Guard liaison stated that, resources permitting, the Coast Guard is to address the following steps: (1) Validate the "unit-type" list so that it encompasses the vast majority of active duty and civilian billets in a logical framework that can be readily analyzed, review/update the list as changes (e.g., asset mix, organizations) occur. (2) Develop the requirements for the envisioned Manpower Analysis & Simulation Tool (MAST). (3) Prioritize unit list according to strategic alignment and risk assessment (4) Conduct the manpower requirements analyses (MRA) in accordance with established priorities. As of August 2020, the Coast Guard reported it had not implemented the actions. Specifically, the Coast Guard reported that in response to GAO's February 2020 modernization report (GAO-20-223, rec#2), it was developing new guidance for executing the manpower requirement determination process. Officials told us that the new guidance would include a systematic process for prioritizing manpower analysis. In this way, the actions for implementing the GAO-20-223 recommendation may also serve to meet the intent of the recommendation for GAO-16-379. Officials told us the Coast Guard estimated implementing the actions by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve the strategic allocation of assets, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should incorporate field unit input, such as information on assets' actual performance from Operational Performance Assessment Reports and Planning Assessments, to inform more realistic asset allocation decisions--in addition to asset performance capacities currently used--in the annual Strategic Planning Directions to more effectively communicate strategic intent to field units.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that Coast Guard management made a decision to not to address this recommendation within the annual Strategic Planning Direction (SPD) or Operational Planning Direction (OPD) products as previously planned, but rather within the Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Process Guide. The liaison further stated these documents are under revision and expected to be completed by March 31, 2018. On October 11, 2018, the Coast Guard liaison stated that The Standard Operational Planning Process/Global Force Management Instruction is in routing for edits, comment, and final approval. The new estimated completion date is the 2nd quarter of FY 2019. GAO sent an inquiry to the Coast Guard on April 24, 2019 asking for an update. On March 30, 2020, the Coast Guard liaison informed GAO that the update to the SOPP/GFM Instruction, which includes the addition and test of Strategic Priorities Planning Guidance and the new Coast Guard Force Allocation Matrix, was further delayed due to recent discussions of changing to a 2-year SOPP planning cycle to align with the Department of Defense Global Force Management process. The liaison stated that the COVID-19 crisis as well as the need to finalize the Strategic Planning Direction by June 2020 are also factors in this delay. The new estimated completion date for this recommendation is June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as a mission statement and long-term goals, to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations and to improve DOD's response to section 324 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. Although in its comments to that report DOD agreed that it should establish a strategic policy that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning to inform the military services' plans for retrograde and reset to support overseas contingency operations, DOD did not agree with identifying the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the lead for this recommendation. In our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet developed a strategic policy, had not yet determined which DOD organization would lead that effort, and that there was no consensus among officials we spoke with regarding which organization should lead that effort. In is comments to this update, DOD generally concurred with these findings and stated that it had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations and that the Air Force had recommended OSD form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We agree that these are steps in the right direction, but until the department establishes a strategic policy for the retrograde and reset of equipment that incorporates key elements of leading practices for sound strategic management as we recommended in May 2016, it will not be positioned to effectively manage the retrograde and reset of equipment. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To enhance the accuracy of budget reporting to Congress, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the DOD Comptroller, to develop and require the use of consistent information and descriptions of key terms regarding retrograde and reset in relevant policy and other guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation in GAO-16-414. In December 2017, DOD updated the relevant chapter of the its Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include definitions of "reset" and "retrograde." However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that despite this action, the terms retrograde and reset were not being used or defined consistently by the department and the military services. Specifically, while some services were using the term reset as defined in the regulation, others were not. In commenting on our 2018 update, DOD noted that the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller had established standardized terms and definitions for the services to use to assess the cost of contingency operations, which allows for a common budget framework, while retaining service flexibility to fulfill their Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip. DOD further stated that the Air Force recommended the Office of the Secretary of Defense form a working group to develop a unified strategic implementation plan and standard terminology, to include a common operating picture. We believe that these actions would be a step in the right direction, but to fully meet the intent of our May 2016 recommendation, DOD needs to take action to ensure that these terms are uniformly defined and consistently used throughout the services. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To improve Army, Navy, and Air Force planning, budgeting, and execution for retrograde and reset efforts, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to develop service-specific implementation plans for retrograde and reset that incorporate elements of leading practices for sound strategic management planning, such as strategies that include how a goal will be achieved, how an organization will carry out its mission, and the resources required to meet goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its response to our recommendation in GAO-16-414, DOD partially concurred, stating that the department would determine the appropriate Principal Staff Assistant to lead the development and application of service-related implementation plans. However, in our August 2018 update (GAO-18-621R) we found that DOD had not yet identified a lead for this effort, and that the Army, Navy, and Air Force had not yet developed implementation plans for the retrograde and reset of their equipment. Navy and Air Force officials further cited the need for a DOD-wide policy before they can establish service-specific plans for resetting equipment for contingency operations while Army officials told us that the Army relies on multiple guidance documents for the reset of equipment and does not currently have plans to develop a unified reset implementation plan. In its response to GAO-18-621R, DOD notes that detailed guidelines and processes for the rotation of personnel in contingency and non-contingency operations are in place, and that if a strategic policy is developed for the retrograde and reset of equipment, consideration should be given to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) as the lead. We continue to believe that our recommendation remains valid and that DOD also needs to establish a strategic policy consistent with leading practices on sound strategic management planning to guide and inform the services' plans, as we also recommended in 2016. As of September 2020, DOD has not taken any action to address this recommendation; DOD is in the process of determining who the appropriate PAO should be.

Recommendation: To ensure that risks associated with ALIS are addressed expediently and holistically, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer to improve the reliability of its cost estimates, conduct uncertainty and sensitivity analyses consistent with cost-estimating best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, this recommendation conflicts with established Office of the Under Secretary of Defense/Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation guidance for cost estimation and uncertainty analysis. Absent a change in policy at that level, the Joint Program Office will continue to follow Office of the Under Secretary of Defense/Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation policy on this issue. We continue to believe that in order for any risks associated with ALIS to be addressed expediently and holistically, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis must be used on the F-35s cost estimates to improve its overall reliability. Thus, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that risks associated with ALIS are addressed expediently and holistically, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer to improve the reliability of its cost estimates, ensure that future estimates of ALIS costs use historical data as available and reflect significant program changes consistent with cost-estimating best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. According to DOD officials, since April 2016, the F-35 program has continued to update the ALIS estimate with the latest available cost data, based on recent contracts. Until more reliable actual costs become available, the program utilizes negotiated contract costs, incorporates program initiatives, and ensures the estimate reflects the latest technical baseline and requirements. Until actual costs associated with ALIS historical data are incorporated in the F-35 cost estimate, we believe that the estimate will not be as reliable as it could be. For this reason, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help improve the management of MAIS programs, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Common Aviation Command and Control System program manager to identify weaknesses in the requirements traceability process and take corrective actions to manage the traceability of requirements to the respective lower-level requirements, and periodically evaluate work products, including the requirements management plan, and update them in accordance with the requirements guidance.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated in March 2016 that the Navy had corrected the data query issue that caused 11 requirements to be eliminated from the traceability matrix we reviewed. DOD also stated that the Navy had identified the weakness in the traceability process that led to 14 general requirements not being fully traced. However, as of June 2020, DOD had not provided us with documentation that supports that it identified the weakness in the requirements traceability process. It also had not demonstrated that the program office has updated its requirements management guidance to address the weakness it identified.

Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, for future ship construction contracts, to determine whether or not a warranty as provided in the FAR, provides value and document the costs, benefits, and other factors used to make this decision. To inform this determination, the Navy should begin differentiating the government's and shipbuilder's responsibility for defects and track the costs to correct all defects after ship delivery.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation in February 2016 by committing to study policy changes with regard to warranties, but disagreed that additional cost data were needed to inform these decisions, and questioned whether warranties are suitable for ship acquisitions. In February 2017, a Navy-funded study found that the Navy had no policy to collect data, and that the little data available were not useful for determining when warranties are suitable. In response to the study, the Navy agreed that, by December 2017, it would make some policy and contractual changes to collect data, but it continued to maintain that warranties are likely not suitable for ship contracts. In January 2018, the Navy issued guidance to help contracting officers determine when and how to use a warranty or guarantee, but the Navy has collected only one warranty cost proposal from one shipbuilder for a contract for a single ship and, going forward, Navy officials stated that they do not have plans to systematically collect such data. In August 2019, we recommended in GAO-19-512 that the Navy collect warranty pricing on its new class of frigates, as the Navy initially did not include warranty pricing as part of its request for proposals for the ship class. However, as of August 2020, the Navy has not made meaningful efforts to gain pricing data for warranties and has stated that the department does not plan to take any further action. To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy needs to collect additional data in order to determine cases in which warranties could contribute to improvements in the cost and quality of Navy ships.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure that senior leadership within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments are better positioned to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should revise their programming guidance to collect information on how contracted services will be used to meet requirements beyond the budget year.

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To ensure the military departments' efforts to integrate services into the programming process and senior service managers efforts to develop forecasts on service contract spending provide the department with consistent data, the Secretary of Defense should establish a mechanism, such as a working group of key stakeholders--which could include officials from the programming, budgeting and requirements communities as well as the senior services managers--to coordinate these efforts.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To provide greater compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement among the DOD components and their defense supplier-base, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should establish mechanisms for department-wide oversight of defense agencies' compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement.

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

Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD has drafted new combined DOD instruction and guidance that addresses the process of reporting suspected counterfeit parts to GIDEP. As of August 2020, the document is still in the process of being formally approved. DOD estimated that it could be approved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: To provide greater compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement among the DOD components and their defense supplier-base, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should develop a standardized process for determining the level of evidence needed to report a part as suspect counterfeit in GIDEP, such as a tiered reporting structure in GIDEP that provides an indication of where the suspect part is in the process of being assessed.

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

Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD has drafted new combined DOD instruction and guidance that addresses the process of reporting suspected counterfeit parts to GIDEP. As of August 2020, the document is still in the process of being formally approved. DOD estimated that it could be approved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: To provide greater compliance with the GIDEP reporting requirement among the DOD components and their defense supplier-base, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should develop guidance for when access to GIDEP reports should be limited to only government users or made available to industry.

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

Comments: In providing comments to this report DOD concurred with this recommendation but has not completed actions to implement it. DOD has drafted new combined DOD instruction and guidance that addresses the process of reporting suspected counterfeit parts to GIDEP. As of August 2020, the document is still in the process of being formally approved. DOD estimated that it could be approved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: To enhance and to promote more consistent oversight of efforts within the department to address the incidence of hazing, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to regularly monitor the implementation of DOD's hazing policy by the military services.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In February 2018 DOD issued a policy on harassment prevention and response in the armed services that defined hazing as one form of harassment, and required each military department secretary to provide a plan to implement the policy. As of October 2020, DOD stated that it had assessed that the military services had fully implemented DOD's hazing policy by September 2020. This determination was based on an assessment of military service implementation plans for DOD's harassment prevention and response policy, which includes prevention of hazing. Through ongoing work on hazing in the military, we continue to monitor the extent to which DOD has regularly monitored the extent to which the military services have implemented its hazing policy.

Recommendation: To promote greater visibility over the extent of hazing in DOD to better inform DOD and military service actions to address hazing, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the Military Departments, to evaluate prevalence of hazing in the military services.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. As of September 2017, DOD had added questions to its survey of servicemembers that would facilitate an evaluation of hazing prevalence but had not yet conducted the evaluation. In October 2020, DOD stated that it need to conduct additional analysis on its survey data and on a hazing/bullying metric developed for DOD by the RAND Corporation, and estimated it would implement this recommendation by October 2023.

Recommendation: To promote greater visibility over the extent of hazing in the Coast Guard to better inform actions to address hazing, the Commandant of the Coast Guard should evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation in its written comments on our report. In 2017 the Coast Guard surveyed servicemembers on hazing and stated that it planned to, but had not yet conducted an evaluation of prevalence. However, in July 2018, the Coast Guard stated that no further analysis was planned for the 2017 survey data. The Coast Guard stated that a second survey was planned for 2019, but did not identify any plans to evaluate the prevalence of hazing in the Coast Guard. As of October 2020, the Coast Guard has not provided a requested update on the status of the implementation of this recommendation or indicated any ongoing plans to implement it.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management of initiatives directed at increasing the recruitment and accessions of women into the officer corps, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the service Secretaries, to develop an oversight framework that includes or incorporates (consistent with applicable law): (1) Service-wide program goals for initiatives directed at female officers' recruitment, such as goals related to the composition of the applicant pool; (2) Performance measures linked to program goals; and (3) Resource allocations linked to program goals.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management of initiatives directed at increasing the recruitment and accessions of women into the officer corps, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the service Secretaries, to conduct evaluations for key recruitment initiatives to help ensure these initiatives are achieving their intended purpose.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not state whether it concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of DOD's strategy for preventing sexual assault in the military, as part of the department's next biennial update to the 2014-16 sexual-assault prevention strategy, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments, to identify risk and protective factors for all of its domains, including the military community and its leaders.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD will take to implement the prevention strategy. In March 2020, DOD officials stated that they had chartered a Prevention Collaboration Forum, which consists of subject matter experts, to address destructive behaviors which may share the same risk and protective factors as sexual assault. Additionally, DOD officials stated that research had begun on identifying the department's risk and protective factors. The officials expected the completed risk studies to be published internally in April 2020 and June 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the recommendation's status when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD's ability to measure the effectiveness of the department's efforts in preventing sexual assault in the military, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments, to fully develop the department's performance measures for the prevention of sexual assault so that the measures include all key attributes of successful performance measures.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for a strategic approach to preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD plans to take to implement the prevention strategy, and instructs DOD to continuously evaluate sexual assault prevention activities. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that they were in the process of conducting an assessment of each of the services' efforts to implement the prevention strategy. Additionally, DOD officials stated that they are developing a milestone report to be issued by the end of fiscal year 2020 that will include updates on all of the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. DOD is also planning to issue a report in fiscal year 2023 that will include a complete evaluation of the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts and update the recommendation's status when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To help ensure widespread adoption and implementation of DOD's sexual-assault prevention strategy and to fulfill its role as a framework that can assist leaders and planners in the development of appropriate tasks, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments, to ensure the military services' Sexual Assault Prevention and Response policies are aligned with the department's prevention strategy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD issued a Prevention Plan of Action (PPoA) that will serve as a framework for a strategic approach to preventing sexual assault. The PPoA contains 29 actions DOD will take to implement the prevention strategy. The PPoA also directs the military services to review and revise their policies to reduce sexual assault and execute prevention activities. According to DOD officials, these efforts are currently underway. We will update the status of this recommendation when more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To gain visibility and enable efficient management on the use of bridge contracts in federal agencies, the Administrator of OFPP should take appropriate steps to develop a standardized definition for bridge contracts and incorporate it as appropriate into relevant FAR sections.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Staff from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) had previously told us that OFPP would be convening the FAR Council to discuss regulatory action after it completes the development of management guidance. In January 2020, OFPP staff stated that they are reviewing the extent to which this guidance is necessary moving forward, and noted that there is no estimated timeframe for completion of this review. However, in August 2020, OFPP staff said that in light of the focus on COVID and related priorities, OFPP does not have immediate plans to pursue guidance on bridge contracting at this time. OFPP staff noted that OFPP continues to work with agencies to help them effectively leverage acquisition flexibilities that reduce Procurement Acquisition Lead Times to reduce the need for bridge contracts. We continue to believe these actions are important to help ensure agencies do not continue to use these noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time, thereby risking paying more than they should for goods and services .

Recommendation: To gain visibility and enable efficient management on the use of bridge contracts in federal agencies, the Administrator of OFPP should, as an interim measure, until the FAR is amended, provide guidance to agencies on (1) a definition of bridge contracts, with consideration of contract extensions as well as stand-alone bridge contracts; and (2) suggestions for agencies to track and manage their use of these contracts, such as identifying a contract as a bridge in a Justification and Approval (J&A) when it meets the definition, and listing the history of previous extensions and stand-alone bridge contracts back to the predecessor contract in the J&A.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget: Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB staff had previously told us that they had drafted guidance, which included a definition for bridge contracts, and that it was under review. In January 2020, OMB staff stated that they are reviewing the extent to which this guidance is necessary moving forward and noted that there is no estimated timeframe for completion of this review. However, in August 2020, OFPP staff said that in light of the focus on COVID and related priorities, OFPP does not have immediate plans to pursue guidance on bridge contracting at this time. OFPP staff noted that OFPP continues to work with agencies to help them effectively leverage acquisition flexibilities that reduce Procurement Acquisition Lead Times to reduce the need for bridge contracts. We continue to believe these actions are important to help ensure agencies do not continue to use these noncompetitive contracts frequently or for prolonged periods of time, thereby risking paying more than they should for goods and services.

Recommendation: Congress should consider the options for sustaining the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund as well as the optimal level of funding to be maintained in the Fund, in light of the expiration of the Fund's per-barrel tax funding source in 2017.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: In fiscal year 2019, the 116th Congress' House and Senate introduced bills H.R. 3301 and S. 865, respectively, to extend the per barrel tax expiration dates. In addition, the Senate bill proposes a ceiling to cut off the tax if the fund's balance is above a certain amount and to also restart based on meeting certain thresholds. We will continue to monitor legislation and congressional actions.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of PCS data in service budget materials. This action should include revising existing guidance on the reporting of non-temporary storage costs, and clarifying existing guidance on the presentation of other PCS data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. However, as of September 2018 DOD stated that the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) was continuing to coordinate with the military services to synchronize and clarify budgetary reporting requirements. As such, we believe that this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to complete periodic evaluations of whether the PCS program is efficiently supporting DOD's requirements for assigning military personnel to new locations while reimbursing servicemembers for allowable expenses incurred during PCS moves. These periodic evaluations should identify changes in PCS per-move costs over time, factors driving such changes, and steps that could be taken to manage and control cost growth.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of data on exceptions used for PCS moves that occur prior to established time-on-station lengths. This action should include clarifying existing guidance with regard to how the services collect, maintain, and report data on exceptions for use in evaluating performance in meeting time-on-station requirements and addressing challenges related to the services' abilities to collect, maintain, and report exceptions data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To improve the availability of information needed for effective and efficient management of the PCS program, including program costs and time-on-station requirements, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in coordination with the military services, to improve the completeness and consistency of data on waivers used for PCS moves that occur prior to established time-on-station lengths. This action should include establishing guidance for the military services to collect, maintain, and report data on waivers for use in evaluating performance in meeting time-on-station requirements and addressing challenges related to the services' abilities to collect, maintain, and report waiver data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. DOD formed a working group to address issues concerning the PCS program, including the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), and the Director, Military Personnel and Construction within the Office of the Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget). As of September 2018 the working group has met multiple times, with its initial focus primarily on adjudication of major legislation associated with housing flexibility during PCS. In addition, the working group reported to Congress in June 2017 on military family stability and PCS, and sponsored a family stability review by RAND. The working group has also reviewed PCS initiatives completed by the military services, and the timeliness of PCS orders. As of September 2018, a combatant commander review of overseas tour lengths and an initiative led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to review PCS data and costs are ongoing. DOD expects these initiatives, as well as additional efforts to collect and analyze PCS data, will continue into fiscal year 2019. While the initiatives DOD mentioned in its response demonstrate progress toward fully implementing our recommendation, we believe that this recommendation should remain open until more progress is made.

Recommendation: To help inform decision makers on the SAMP's progress as well as the decision regarding the extension of the SAMP's term, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP to define timelines and measures to assess its progress in completing its major tasks.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that the department will submit its Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1, 2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase assurance that commanders are conducting command climate assessments in accordance with statutory requirements and departmental guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to modify existing guidance or develop new guidance to comply with requirements set forth in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and internal DOD guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that existing Army practice is consistent with the intent of departmental guidance for command climate survey utilization. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better inform the department's approach to senior officers' professional development, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and flag officers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it concurs with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback assessments, where they are not already being performed, but that it believes that it should only do so for general and flag officers at the three star ranks and below. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. At that time, DOD also stated that it believes in a holistic approach to developing and assessing professionalism, noting, as an example, the Joint Staff's use of staff assistance visits and Senior Leader "roundtables" to complement the use of 360-degree assessments. In April 2018, DOD stated that each military department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had implemented a 360-degree assessment requirement for all general and flag officers. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries regarding documentation in support of these actions. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.