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 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 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the DHA, consistently collect complete and accurate information about the quality of available civilian health care in proximity to its MTFs (such as ratings from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and perceptions from MTF officials who regularly coordinate with civilian providers, among other means) and assess that information to inform recommendations for future MTF restructuring decisions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department described its planned implementation steps, such as publishing measures it may use for assessing available civilian health care. We will continue to monitor the status of the measures and any other actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the DHA, consistently collect complete and accurate information about the extent to which current health care providers within the TRICARE networks meet access-to-care standards, and assess that information to inform recommendations on future MTF restructuring decisions. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. The department noted actions underway and planned to implement it, including a centralized appointment booking system and monitoring access to care as MTFs restructure. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort and any other actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the DHA, consistently collect complete and accurate information about the extent to which non-network civilian health care providers that could be incorporated into the TRICARE network meet access-to-care standards in terms of drive time, and assess that information to inform recommendations on future MTF restructuring decisions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, and described planned steps to implement it for future MTF restructuring decisions. We will continue to monitor actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the DHA, conducts a sensitivity analysis of the relative cost-effectiveness of MTF-provided care compared to civilian-provided care under varying assumptions, and document that information for decision makers to inform recommendations on future MTF restructuring decisions. Varying conditions could include different types of health care services, reducing the cost of military personnel salaries, and increasing estimated MTF wRVUs and civilian reimbursement rates. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. We will continue to monitor actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the DHA, establishes clear roles and responsibilities for executing and monitoring transitions for MTFs identified for restructuring. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions underway and planned to implement it. We will continue to monitor actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeons General of the military departments and the Director of the DHA, defines measurable objectives for MTF restructuring transitions, establishes thresholds and goals for each objective, and applies them to evaluate progress and challenges. For example, measurable objectives, thresholds, and goals, should include an evaluation of medical providers' clinical readiness, civilian health care provider adequacy, and the cost-effectiveness of MTF and purchased care. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions underway and planned to implement it. We will continue to monitor actions the department takes to address the recommendation.

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 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 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 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 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 Director of DHA should develop and implement plans with timeframes and specific actions needed for all 13 required elements to be reflected in the TRICARE contracts. (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 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 Chief Management Officer identify and document specific implementation steps to advance a collaborative culture, consistent with our leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations.

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of DHA should define data sharing requirements with more specificity in its transition guidance for outgoing and incoming contractors, including the time period covered and the types of data that must be shared. (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 Director of DHA should revise the process the agency has in place for resolving issues raised between contractors during transition to ensure such issues are resolved within time frames that will not adversely affect the transition schedule. (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 Director of DHA should incorporate lessons learned from this transition and ensure that subject matter experts review PRV/PRAV requirements and performance guarantees prior to the issuance of the request for proposal for the next transition. These requirements should be reviewed to ensure their feasibility and effectiveness for assessing contractor readiness. (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: 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 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 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 F-35 program office assesses whether the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) R&M targets are still feasible and revise the ORD accordingly. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would review its Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) requirements and possibly revise them. In late 2019, the F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) developed an initiative to clearly identify what, if any, revisions DOD should make to the ORD. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office, as it revises its Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program (RMIP), identifies specific and measurable R&M objectives in its RMIP guidance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its Reliability & Maintainability (R&M) RMIP guidance. In late 2019, DOD reported that a revised RMIP will be delivered to program leadership for approval. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office, as it revises its RMIP, identifies and documents which RMIP projects will achieve the identified objectives of the RMIP guidance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would update its RMIP guidance. In late 2019, DOD reported that a revised RMIP will be delivered to program leadership for approval. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the F-35 program office prioritizes funding for the RMIP. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would plan for R&M funding going forward. In Sept. 2019, the F-35 Program Office reported that it was coordinating with the services to increase its Reliability & Maintainability investment. In Nov. 2019, the F-35 Program Office reported that it would allocate significant additional funding for RMIP for calendar year 2020. As of July 2020, no additional actions have been taken.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 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 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 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 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 Defense Laboratories Office routinely obtain and monitor defense laboratory hiring data to improve the oversight of the defense laboratories' use of hiring authorities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and cited steps the department was and would be taking to improve oversight and coordination of the defense laboratories' hiring efforts. In June 2018, DOD acknowledged receipt of our final report and stated that the department's overall position on the report had not changed. We will provide further updates once additional information is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Defense Laboratories Office develop performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the defense laboratories' use of hiring authorities as part of the labs' overall hiring to better inform future decision making about hiring efforts and policies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and cited steps the department was and would be taking to improve oversight and coordination of the defense laboratories' hiring efforts. In June 2018, DOD acknowledged receipt of our final report and stated that the department's overall position on the report had not changed. We will provide further updates once additional information is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Defense Laboratories Office, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Laboratory Quality Enhancement Panel's Personnel Subpanel, establish and document time frames for its coordination process to direct efforts across the relevant offices and help ensure the timely approval and implementation of hiring authorities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and cited steps the department was and would be taking to improve oversight and coordination of the defense laboratories' hiring efforts. In June 2018, DOD acknowledged receipt of our final report and stated that the department's overall position on the report had not changed. We will provide further updates once additional information is received.

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 the Navy should take steps to ensure that the Marine Corps not enter full-rate production until the Marine Corps has determined that the contractor has achieved an MRL of at least 9 for all risk areas. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it agreed that manufacturing readiness levels (MRL) for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle 1.1 should be assessed prior to the decision to award the option for the second lot of low-rate production, but disagreed that an MRL assessment of any individual risk area, in itself, should delay the contract award. We maintained that achieving an overall MRL-9 by the by the start of full-rate production represents best practice to minimize production risk. According the Marine Corp, the most recent MRL Assessment as of August 2020 assessed the program at an overall MRL-8. The Marine Corps indicated that another MRL assessment is estimated to be completed in November 2020 to support the decision to enter full-rate production, which is planned for December 2020.

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 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 Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, should re-examine the metrics that it will use to hold the contractor accountable under the fixed-price, performance-based contracts to ensure that such metrics are objectively measurable, are fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics contract. A DOD official said that this group is also working to identify appropriate metrics to hold the contractor accountable under a potential long-term performance-based contract. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to re-examine metrics to ensure that they are objectively measureable, fully reflective of processes over which the contractor has control, and drive desired behaviors by all stakeholders.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, should, prior to entering into multi-year, fixed-price, performance-based contracts, ensure that DOD has sufficient knowledge of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft after baseline development is complete and the system reaches maturity. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of December 2019, documentation provided by DOD stated that it had established a joint working group to assess the feasibility of and examine options for DOD's planned 5-year performance-based logistics (PBL) contract. As a product of this assessment, DOD expects that the department will be able to outline what level of knowledge is required of the actual costs of sustainment and technical characteristics of the aircraft in order to enter into a PBL sustainment construct. DOD has not provided us with a timeline of when the working group's assessment will be complete. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

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: 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: 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 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 ensure that annual training plans are aligned with the Air Force's stated goals to ensure that its forces can successfully achieve missions across a broad range of current and emerging threats, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to comprehensively reassess the assumptions underlying its annual training requirements--including, but not limited to, the total annual training requirements by aircraft, the criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced, and the mix between live and simulator training--and make any appropriate adjustments in future training plans.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with the recommendation. The Air Force has taken steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, Air Force officials stated they have completed one study and have an ongoing study, intended to reassess the assumptions underlying its annual training requirements for fighter aircrews. For example, Air Force officials stated a study was completed in August 2017 reassessing the criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced for 4th generation fighter aircraft. In addition, Air Force officials stated that another study was intended to define the optimum mix of annual training requirements for fighter aircrews. These officials stated that the study results were provided to Air Force senior leaders in July 2018 for approval. As of August 2020, the Air Force did not provide any additional documentation on steps taken to address the recommendation. Completion of these studies and the corresponding adjustments to annual training requirements should help the Air Force ensure that their training plans are aligned to achieve a range of missions for current and emerging threats as recommended by GAO in September 2016.

Recommendation: To improve the Air Force's ability to consistently monitor training results and better position it to allocate resources to address factors that limit the effectiveness of training, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force to establish desired learning objectives and training support elements needed to accomplish the training expectations in its annual Ready Aircrew Program tasking memorandums, and develop a process to collect data to assess the effectiveness of annual training against these features.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with the recommendation, stating that the Air Force's Ready Aircrew Program training differs significantly from other syllabus-directed courses of instruction and that desired learning objectives for this training are set at the squadron level in accordance with current Air Force guidance. As of August 2020, DOD did not provide any documentation on steps taken to address this recommendation.

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 ensure that Congress will have more complete information on DOD's full funding needs for its O&M base budget and to conduct oversight of DOD's use of OCO funds to support base programs and activities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller to revise its guidance on preparing budget justification materials and execution reports for Congress to require the addition of O&M obligations used for base programs and activities at the level of information presented for each account.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated in its initial response to our recommendation that there is no legal or administrative subdivision of the O&M appropriation for base and OCO; however, we continue to believe that the recommendation is valid and will follow up annually on the status of the recommendation. As of May 2019, DOD reaffirmed its initial response and has not taken any action to implement our 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: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to disclose in the report the fact that reconstitution funding data are current as of the end of the fiscal year, identify significant changes reported in these data from year to year, and provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of May 2020, DOD did state that the statutory requirement is for the department to provide information on the status of the prepositioned stocks as of the end of the fiscal year in its fiscal year 2019 prepositioning report, the most recent annual report. Also, DOD had an explanation that the reconstitution funding data may continue to be refined after the report's submission in the report. However, the report did not identify significant changes reported in the reconstitution data from year to year or provide explanations as to the reasons for the changes. In May 2020, DOD stated it would consider adding information in future reports about whether the reconstitution data changed and associated explanations. We will keep this recommendation open pending our review of the fiscal year 2020 prepositioning report.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in its planned update to its War Reserve Materiel Policy document, to add language to clarify when and how risk assessments should be performed.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with the recommendation. At the time our report was issued, DOD stated that it would re-evaluate the need to perform risk assessments for prepositioned war reserve material during the update of DOD Instruction 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document, and that it will determine whether changes are needed in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff risk assessment process. However, as of May 2020, DOD had not included information regarding when and how risk assessments should be performed in its DOD Instruction 3110.06 War Reserve Policy document, which it last revised in January 2019. Nor has DOD included this information in it Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 4310.10E, which it last revised in January 2020. In May 2020, DOD stated it would consider issuing a Guidance Memorandum--to supplement existing policy--that clarifies when and how risk assessments should be performed. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: As part of their ongoing efforts to strengthen oversight and improve the overall quality of information included in DOD's annual prepositioning reports in order to provide congressional decision makers with complete and relevant information, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to include in the annual prepositioned stock report a section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information and indicates where that information can be found.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. However, as of May 2020, DOD had no section that identifies omitted prepositioned stock information or indicates where that information can be found in its fiscal year 2019 prepositioning report, the most recent annual report.

Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should establish a requirement for collecting, tracking, and reporting data on the use of borrowed military personnel and provide guidance to ensure that data collected are complete and accurate; if other special duty data are included, ensure that the tool contains a method to distinguish borrowed military personnel from other special duty data.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation and noted that it has an existing process for oversight and reporting of the use of soldiers replacing or converting functions previously performed by contractors and planned to develop a similar policy to address oversight on soldiers replacing or converting functions previously performed by civilians. As of July 2019, the Army has not provided an update on the development of this policy.

Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should issue guidance that includes procedures for tracking the amount of time soldiers are used as borrowed military personnel.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation and noted that it would be unreasonable to require tracking the amount of time soldiers are used as borrowed military personnel because it would be overly burdensome and that Army Regulation 570-4 allows for the use of soldiers for training purposes or for temporary functions. In July 2019, the Army indicated that the revision to Army Regulation 570-4 will be issued in December 2019.

Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should revise Army Regulation 570-4 to include guidance to senior commanders for approving the use of soldiers for positions or functions outside their occupational specialty on a rotational basis for an enduring period.

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

Comments: The Army partially concurred with our recommendation. In their comments the Army noted that it has issued guidance establishing the appropriate use of military manpower and was in the process of incorporating this guidance into Army Regulation 570-4. In July 2019, the Army indicated that the revision of Army Regulation 570-4 would be issued in December 2019.

Recommendation: To better position the Army to determine the extent to which it is continuing to use borrowed military personnel and to enhance the Army's ability to utilize its total workforce efficiently and effectively as it moves forward, the Secretary of the Army should establish oversight mechanisms that include directing commanders to maintain records for considering the full costs of borrowed military personnel when making decisions to use these personnel, and directing the Army to review these records and full costs reported by installations and commands to help ensure that these costs are considered, documented, and reported in a uniform manner.

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

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. However, the Army noted that it already has a process requiring that a cost analysis take place. Additionally, the Army stated that the process of conducting a cost analysis should be conducted at the headquarter level and that the Army will issue policy to institute this. As of July 2019 the Army has not provided an update on the status of this policy or a status on implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide greater visibility over the extent to which Army UAS units have completed required training to leaders responsible for deployment decisions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to require unit status reports to include information on the readiness levels of UAS pilots in UAS units.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. Since May 2016, the Commanding General of Forces Command (FORSCOM) has chaired a Monthly Aviation Readiness Review (MARR) in which review members assess aviation readiness across all aviation organizations including UAS. In August 2018, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army plans to update Army Regulation 220-1, Army Unit Status Reporting and Force Registration to "bring UAS Operator reporting in line with other Army weapon systems, as UAS readiness was not previously captured." However, as of November 2019, the revision to the Army Regulation had not been published.

Recommendation: To help ensure that Army UAS pilots receive the highest caliber of training to prepare them to successfully accomplish UAS missions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to take additional steps to mitigate potential risks posed by its waiver of course prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots attending the course to become instructors, such as by providing additional preparation for current and future instructors who do not meet one or more course prerequisites to enhance their ability to successfully provide training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2016, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army had taken additional steps to mitigate potential risks posed by waiving course prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots attending the course to become instructors. Specifically, by the end of fiscal year 2016, the Army had put 50 of 106 planned Universal Mission Simulators in place for active duty units and reduced the number of waivers granted for three of four course prerequisites. Army officials also provided documentation to show that the number of waivers granted had decreased in fiscal year 2016. However, an Army official from the Training and Doctrine Command stated that the Army had not provided additional training or preparation for instructors who had previously received a waiver of one of the course prerequisites to attend the instructor course as we had recommended. In July 2018, Army Headquarters officials indicated that the Army continued to use simulators to reduce the need for waivers but they also indicated that they continue to grant waivers to less experienced less experienced UAS pilots to enable them to enter the instructor operator course. In September 2019, the Army headquarters reported that the Army continues to use simulates to reduce the need for waivers to three of the four Army Instructor Operator (IO) course prerequisites (total hours, readiness level and aircraft currency). However as of November 2019 the Army had not provided additional training or preparation for instructors who had previously received a waiver of one of the course prerequisites to attend the instructor course as we had recommended.

Recommendation: To increase opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of UAS pilot training across DOD, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to address how the services should coordinate with one another in the strategy on UAS pilot training that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is current drafting.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness was in the process of revising its draft "Department of Defense Training Strategy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS)" to address inter-service coordination to enable the department to train more efficiently and effectively as a whole. In October 2016, the Director stated that RAND had completed the draft strategy and that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) had begun revising the strategy. An Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) official working on the revisions stated that the strategy would address our recommendation and coordination among the services. However, as of October 2016, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) had not yet issued the department-wide UAS training strategy. In May 2018, the Director Military Training and Ranges in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness)/Force Training engaged a team to review the 2016 draft strategy to recommend a way forward. According to that official, the review was nearing completion and he anticipated presenting their recommendation to the current Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education & Training in late July 2018. In September 2018 this official said that developing a new UAS strategy is not planned and he reiterated again in August 2019 that a UAS training strategy has not been issued. We continue to believe this is a valid recommendation and will keep it open in case the department eventually takes any relevant actions.

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

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

Comments: DOD did not agree with the recommendation. In 2016, DOD's Corrosion Office consistently maintained that its existing process is adequately documented in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and the Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) Definitions Document. However, GAO maintained that DOD could enhance its oversight of corrosion projects by documenting how it approves projects for civilian institutions. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. Specifically, the Corrosion Office plans to include information on documenting procedures for approving projects in a new DOD manual on corrosion that it has a goal of creating by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation

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

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

Comments: DOD did not agree with the recommendation. In 2016, DOD's Corrosion Office had consistently maintained that its existing process is adequately documented in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan and the Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) Definitions Document. However, GAO maintained that DOD could enhance its oversight of corrosion projects by documenting how it selects and approves TCC projects for military academic institutions. As of March 2019, DOD has since decided to take action to implement this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to include information on documenting procedures for selecting and approving projects in a new DOD manual on corrosion that it has a goal of creating by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

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

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

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