Recommendation: ODCFO should update the CAP template provided in its guidance to assist components in developing CAPs to include the year deficiencies are first identified data element defined in the Implementation Guide for OMB Circular A-123. (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: ODCFO should update the NFR Database with a field to record the year deficiencies are first identified. (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: ODCFO should incorporate appropriate steps to improve its CAP review process, including ensuring that (1) data elements not included in CAPs are appropriately identified and communicated to components and resolved, (2) NFRs are appropriately linked to the correct CAPs to address them, and (3) components document their rationale for accepting the risk associated with certain deficiencies and appropriately identify such instances in the NFR Database. (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: ODCFO should update DOD guidance to instruct DOD and components to document root-cause analysis when needed to address deficiencies auditors identified. (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: ODCFO should include appropriate steps in its monthly NFR Database review process to evaluate and follow-up on previously identified exceptions to ensure that they are resolved timely. (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 Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with relevant stakeholders from NSC and NEC, should ensure that the plan to implement the 5G national strategy fully addresses all elements of our six desirable characteristics of a national strategy.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of the IC should establish specific timeliness objectives for completing investigations conducted by the OIG of the IC. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of the IC should establish a time frame to finalize revisions to the OIG's investigations manual. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of the IC should establish a process to regularly review and update the OIG's investigative procedures. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of the IC should develop and implement a quality assurance program for the OIG's investigations division. This program should consist of routine internal and external quality assurance reviews consistent with CIGIE standards and guidance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of the IC should develop a process to facilitate external quality assurance reviews of other IC-element OIGs' investigations divisions. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of the IC should ensure that as the ICIG finalizes its draft investigations procedures and investigator training plan, these documents provide an approach that systematically links the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities and training requirements throughout an investigator's career progression. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence: Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of CIA should establish a time frame to finalize revisions to the OIG's investigations manual. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of CIA should establish a process to regularly review and update the OIG's investigative manual and policies. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of CIA should implement routine internal quality assurance reviews as part of the quality assurance program for the OIG's investigations divisions consistent with CIGIE standards and guidance. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Central Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of DIA should establish a process to regularly review and update the OIG's investigative procedures. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of DIA should implement routine external quality assurance reviews in the quality assurance program for the OIG's investigations division consistent with CIGIE standards. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of DIA should take steps to ensure that notifications to complainants in reprisal cases occur and are documented in the investigative case file, as required by OIG policy. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NGA should establish specific timeliness objectives for completing investigations conducted by the OIG of NGA. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NGA should develop and implement a quality assurance program for the OIG's investigations division. This program should consist of routine internal and external quality assurance reviews consistent with CIGIE standards and guidance. (Recommendation 14)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NGA should take steps to ensure that notifications to complainants in reprisal cases occur and are documented in the investigative case file, as required by OIG policy. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NRO should establish a time frame to finalize the OIG's draft investigations manual. (Recommendation 16)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NRO should establish a process to regularly review and update the OIG's investigative procedures. (Recommendation 17)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NRO should continue to develop and implement a quality assurance program for the OIG's investigations division, which should incorporate routine internal and external quality assurance reviews consistent with CIGIE standards and guidance. (Recommendation 18)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NRO should consider making the use of documented investigative plans a requirement for all investigations. (Recommendation 19)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NRO should revise its training plan to provide an approach that systematically links the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to training requirements throughout an investigator's career progression. (Recommendation 20)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NRO should take steps to ensure that notifications to complainants in reprisal cases occur and are documented in the investigative case files, as required by OIG policy. (Recommendation 21)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Reconnaissance Office: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NSA should develop and implement a quality assurance program for the OIG's investigations division. This program should consist of routine internal and external quality assurance reviews consistent with CIGIE standards and guidance. (Recommendation 22)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Security Agency/Central Security Service: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Inspector General of NSA should develop an investigator training plan that provides an approach that systematically links the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to training requirements to an investigator's career progression. (Recommendation 23)

Agency: Department of Defense: National Security Agency/Central Security Service: Office of the Inspector General
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the W87-1 program to ensure consistent, reliable, and objective assessments of remaining feature and component design decisions in Phase 6.2 by developing study plans for remaining design studies consistent with the guidelines for such plans in NNSA's AOA procedure, including documenting and justifying deviations from best practices. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the Office of Defense Programs to revise its program execution instruction to require that design studies for warhead life extension and replacement programs follow AOA best practices, such as by having a study plan, or to justify and document deviations from best practices. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the Office of Defense Programs' plutonium program office to ensure that the integrated master schedule in development for pit production meets NIMS standards, consistent with best practices for schedule development. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the W87-1 program to prioritize the development and documentation of a risk mitigation strategy to address the risk that pit production may be insufficient to meet W87-1 production needs. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) should, in collaboration with the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), develop and implement a DOD-wide strategy to remediate real property asset control issues. (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering revise its IR&D instruction to require USD (R&E) personnel to annually review defense industry IR&D investments to inform DOD's science and technology strategic planning efforts. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation stating that USD(R&E) will investigate and revise its IR&D Instruction to require annual review of defense industry IR&D investments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center, assess and determine whether the DTIC IR&D database should require contractors to include additional information on IR&D projects, such as: (a) The IR&D project's linkage, if any, to DOD's modernization priorities; (b) The allowable category (basic research, applied research, technology development, or concept study) to which the IR&D project belongs; (c) The nature of the project as either potentially disruptive or potentially incremental research and development; and (d) The actual IR&D project costs when the project is completed. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation stating that the DTIC Administrator will assess whether the DOD IR&D database should require contractors to include additional information on IR&D projects, and make his recommendation to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Research and Technology for its decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service reports the results of the assessment of employee perceptions of modifications to term and temporary appointments to the Congress and GAO.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with our recommendation. We will continue to follow-up with DOD on the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the OMFV program to update its cost estimate to include analyses to support the development of a range of possible cost outcomes for decision makers in a manner consistent with GAO's Cost Estimation Guide. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to provide decision makers a range of possible cost outcomes to support future program milestone decisions. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the OMFV program to inform requirements by conducting systems engineering reviews at key decision points consistent with our leading practices for acquisition, as the program office finalizes its acquisition approach. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The agency concurred with this recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment implements DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant DOD guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will oversee updates to relevant guidance related to supply processes and that they anticipate the updates to be complete by May 31, 2021. The department further noted that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will ensure updates are made to the acquisition policies, when and if appropriate. However, the department stated that its Adaptive Acquisition Framework currently provides all of the necessary flexibility required. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should implement DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant Department of the Army guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Secretary of the Army should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Army would update, as appropriate, Army guidance related to acquisition and supply upon updates to DOD's climate adaptation directive and other applicable DOD or federal regulations. However, DOD noted that it does not plan to update its acquisition guidance in response to our recommendation that DOD do so. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should implement DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant Department of the Navy guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Secretary of the Navy should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Department of the Navy had suggested that the recommendation be restated to recommend that the Department of the Navy ensure that its guidance and procedures are updated to align with DOD's directive on climate adaptation upon issuance of an updated directive. However, DOD has not identified any plans to update its directive on climate change adaptation. Thus, we continue to believe that the Department of the Navy should update its guidance related to acquisition and supply to incorporate the current guidance in DOD's climate adaptation directive, which it has not yet done. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should implement DOD Directive 4715.21 on climate change adaptation and resilience by updating, as appropriate, relevant Department of the Air Force guidance related to acquisition and supply processes to incorporate the directive's provisions pertaining to those processes. In doing so, the Secretary of the Air Force should consider providing guidance as to how departmental officials may leverage already existing information regarding private companies. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that the Air Force will work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the other military services to develop specific policies that address climate-related risks to DOD contractors. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Secretaries of the military departments, and any other governmental and private-sector partners, as appropriate, determine what approaches may be feasible in conducting mission assurance related assessments of commercially owned facilities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that formal mission assurance assessments are limited in scope in order to provide additional rigor to protect DOD's most critical capabilities. However, the department stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy would work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment's Defense Contract Management Agency to better understand DOD's commercial dependencies. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Secretaries of the military departments, and any other governmental and private-sector partners, as appropriate, issue new or update existing guidance, based upon the determination of what approaches may be feasible, to clarify the steps that DOD officials involved in the mission assurance process may take to apply the mission assurance framework to commercially owned facilities, as appropriate, to include consideration of risks related to climate change and extreme weather. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In its response, the department noted that it concurs with the need to clarify steps that officials may take to apply the mission assurance framework to defense critical infrastructure and critical defense industrial base commercially owned facilities, to include consideration of risks related to climate change and extreme weather. However, the department further noted that it does not concur with doing this for all commercial facilities because conducting such assessments for all commercially owned facilities falls outside the capacity and authority of DOD to conduct mission assurance assessments. However, we had not recommended they conduct such assessments for all commercial facilities. We will continue to monitor the status of 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 the Air Force should develop and implement procedures for an ERM governance structure that includes oversight responsibilities for identifying, assessing, responding to, and reporting on the risks associated with agency material weaknesses from all relevant sources. These procedures should clearly demonstrate that risks associated with material weaknesses are considered by Air Force governance, as a whole, and are mitigated appropriately to achieve goals and objectives. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and highlighted steps taken or planned to address this recommendation. Specifically, in FY19, the Air Force assessed the current-state of the risk management programs throughout the Air Force and developed a maturity model, implementation plan, and a governance structure to comply with OMB A-123 requirements. These enhancements will be implemented and formalized in policy in FY20. Further, beginning in FY19, the Air Force Senior Assessment Team (SAT) and the Senior Management Council (SMC) monitored corrective action plans for material weaknesses identified internally and by independent public accountants, including their impact on the Air Force's ability to achieve its enterprise objectives. In addition, the Air Force developed a process for the SAT and the SMC to discuss corrective action plans for material weaknesses on a quarterly basis as opposed to an annual basis, which will be evidenced in the form of board briefings and meeting minutes. Additionally, in FY19 the Air Force engaged the Enterprise Productivity Improvement Council to serve as the Air Force Risk Management Council (RMC) to oversee enterprise risk management as defined by their Charter, which was signed in February 2020. The Air Force will refine its policies and procedures to clearly specify the risks associated with the material weaknesses being addressed by the Air Force governance boards. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop policies or procedures for assessing internal control to require (1) clearly delineating who within the Air Force is responsible for evaluating the internal control components and principles, how often they are to perform the evaluation, the level (e.g., entity or transactional) of the evaluation, what objectives are covered in the assessment, to whom to communicate the results if they are relevant to others performing assessments of internal control, and what guidance to follow; (2) documenting management's determination of whether each component and principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively; and (3) documenting management's determination of whether components are operating together in an integrated manner. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described steps taken or planned to address the recommendation. The Air Force SAF/FM performs both entity-level control assessments against all internal control components and principles and performs process level control assessments for internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems. The Air Force Audit Agency and the Air Force Inspector General have performed assessments related to operations and compliance. The Air Force will document those roles and responsibilities in formal policies. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop policies or procedures for assessing internal control to require the use of test plans that (1) tie back to specific objectives to be achieved as included in the Business Operations Plan; (2) specify the nature, scope, and timing of procedures to conduct under the OMB Circular No. A-123 assessment process; and (3) reflect a consideration of prior year self-identified control deficiencies and results of internal and external audits. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described steps taken or planned to address this recommendation. The Air Force test plans for internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems tie back to their relevant risk frameworks embedded in authoritative audit guidance. The framework used for financial reporting is the Financial Audit Manual, and the framework used for financial systems is the Federal Information Systems Controls Audit Manual, and include the nature, scope and timing of procedures performed. The Air Force's process-level internal control test plans are aligned with business process-level risks and objectives and are not directly associated with the Air Force's strategic objectives. The Air Force Business Operations Plan identifies strategic objectives, not business process-level objectives. Additionally, the Air Force considers previously identified internal control deficiencies in its annual documented internal control assessment scoping process. The Air Force will refine its policies and procedures regarding the use of test plans including operational and compliance controls. Due to the need for policy, procedure, and documentation updates required for operational and compliance controls, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine policies, procedures, and documentation by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop policies or procedures for assessing internal control to require SAF/FM to validate (1) the number of organizational units reporting for its overall internal control assessment; (2) how control procedures were tested, what results were achieved, and how conclusions were derived from those results; and (3) whether the results used to compile the current year report are based on current fiscal year's assessments. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will design policies and procedures to determine assessable units and verify that results are current on an annual basis. Due to the need to reevaluate the Air Force's assessable unit structure and the associated change management that will be necessary to implement the changes to sustain an effective program, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2021 and publish the policies by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop policies or procedures for assessing internal control to require SAF/FM to assess how waivers affect the current year assessment of internal control, the determination of systemic weaknesses, and the compilation of the Air Force's overall Statement of Assurance. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will design policies and procedures to consider the impact of waivers to the overall assessment of the system of internal control. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should require that developers of the policy and related guidance associated with designing the procedures for conducting OMB Circular No. A-123 assessments receive recurring training and are appropriately skilled in conducting internal control assessments and are familiar with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described steps taken or planned to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Air Force is implementing multiple changes to the Air Force's ERM and internal control program, including improved governance, standardized processes and documentation for enterprise risk management, entity-level and process-level controls, training, fraud risk management, and data quality management. Training content in FY20 was updated to reflect additional information, including definitions for internal controls and considerations for determining material weaknesses for operations. The Air Force will continue to update its the policies, guidance, and training to coincide with the current progress of the program. The Air Force will continue to refine the audience of its training to verify that those responsible for implementing and assessing ERM and internal controls are trained sufficiently. Due to the need for policy, procedure, documentation, and training updates required for operational and compliance controls, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, documentation, and training by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should analyze all definitions included in Air Force ERM and internal control assessment policy and related guidance to ensure that all definitions and concepts are defined correctly. (Recommendation 7)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will verify that all definitions and concepts in its policies are current and consistent with other authoritative guidance. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2020 and publish the policies by September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should require SAF/FM to design recurring training for those who will assess internal control that (1) includes enhancing their skills in evaluating the internal control system and documenting results; (2) reflects all OMB Circular No. A-123 requirements, such as those related to identifying objectives, evaluating deficiencies, and determining material weaknesses; and (3) is provided to all who are responsible for performing internal control assessments. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions taken or planned to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Air Force performs annual training to Major Commands, Direct Reporting Units, and Functional Executives. In FY20, the Air Force included business process assessable leads in this training. The Air Force plans to continue to refine the audience of its training to verify that those responsible for implementing and assessing ERM and internal controls are trained sufficiently by September 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop policy or procedures consistent with OMB Circular No. A-123 to assess the system of internal control using a risk-based approach. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions taken or planned to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Air Force's scoping procedures, beginning in FY19, consider materiality, both quantitative and qualitative risk, as well as risks identified in the enterprise risk management process. The Air Force assesses internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems using a risk-based approach as evidenced currently in documented procedures and testing templates. The Air Force will refine its procedure documentation to include the assessment of internal controls over operations and compliance using a risk-based approach. Due to the need for policy, procedure, and documentation updates required for operational and compliance controls, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, and documentation by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop procedures to assess internal control over processes related to mission-critical assets, including (1) tests of design that evaluate whether controls are capable of achieving objectives, (2) tests of effectiveness only after a favorable assessment of the design of the control, and (3) a baseline that has accurate descriptions of business processes and identifies key internal controls as designed by management to respond to risks. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation and described actions taken or planned to address the recommendation. The Air Force documents processes and assesses internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems related to mission critical assets that includes determinations as to internal control design, implementation, operating effectiveness and risks. The Air Force will enhance its approach for documenting processes and assessing internal controls over operations and compliance not related to financial reporting and financial systems through policy. Due to the need for policy, procedure, and documentation updates required for operational and compliance controls related to mission-critical assets, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, and documentation by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should establish a process and reporting lines of all the sources of information, including reviews performed of internal control processes related to mission-critical assets, that will be considered in the Secretary's Statement of Assurance. (Recommendation 11)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force reports material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting and financial systems related to mission critical assets through SAF/FM, but it will solidify its reporting channels for material weaknesses in internal controls over operations and compliance through policy. Due to the need for policy, procedure, documentation, and training updates required to appropriately report deficiencies in internal control over operations and compliance, and the coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies, procedures, documentation, and training by September 2021 and publish the associated policies by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop procedures to require coordination between business process leads and the Air Force's unit managers to ensure that mission-critical asset–related internal control deficiencies are considered in the unit managers' assessments of internal control and related supporting statements of assurance. These procedures should include how, when, and with what frequency the results from the business process internal control reviews should be provided to relevant organizational units for consideration in their respective assurance statements. (Recommendation 12)

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

Comments: The DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Air Force will develop procedures to enhance communication between business process leads and Air Force unit managers to verify that deficiencies are reported appropriately in supporting statements of assurance. Due to the need for coordination across multiple Air Force organizations to seek input, approve, and concur with policy changes, as well as the change management needed to implement additional communications and protocol processes, the Air Force plans to refine the policies by September 2021 and publish the policies by September 2022.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD CIO to complete a department-wide inventory of existing IP-compliant devices and technologies to help with planning efforts and requirements development for the transition to IPv6. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD CIO to develop a cost estimate as described in OMB memorandum M-05-22 for the department's transition to IPv6. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD CIO to develop a risk analysis as described in OMB memorandum M-05-22 for the department's transition to IPv6. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to provide information that is similar to that which is statutorily required after the milestone C review to Congress ahead of the milestone C review (full-rate production decision). This submission should include an evaluation of the production risks associated with critical production processes that are not in control, reliability and maintainability (R&M) targets that are not met, and supplier readiness—particularly for those replacing Turkish suppliers, along with the steps it is taking to address those risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, citing updates the F-35 program office provides to oversight entities within DOD. We maintain that the program office should provide these same updates to Congress as well. Without a substantive assessment highlighting specific production risks, as well as the steps DOD will take to mitigate them, Congress may not have key insights into the risks that remain with the program and to the overall effort to deliver F-35s to the warfighter. DOD has agreed to keep the Congress apprised of these matters in its quarterly briefings to the defense committees.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to establish a Block 4 cost estimate baseline that includes all Block 4 costs, including incurred costs and future costs in its reports to Congress as required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, so that Congress has a complete understanding of all Block 4 costs and can compare this baseline to future cost estimates and performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to our report, DOD stated that future reports to Congress will include prior and future costs, outside of the Future Years Defense Program costs. As of September 15, 2020, DOD has not yet issued an updated report to Congress. We will monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation once it releases its next report.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to complete a program office level, product-oriented work breakdown structure for the next update to its Block 4 cost estimate to ensure that the estimate meets the comprehensive leading practices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: Though DOD did not concur with this recommendation, in response to this report, DOD agreed to evaluate moving to a program-level, product-oriented work breakdown structure in 2021. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to conduct risk and uncertainty analyses for the next update to its Block 4 cost estimate to ensure that the estimate meets the credible leading practices. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to this report, DOD stated that the F-35 program office estimate is aligned with the DOD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation's approach and methodology for performing development cost estimates. However, DOD did not identify specific actions it plans to take to include risk and uncertainty into its next Block 4 cost estimate update. We will continue to monitor any actions DOD takes in this regard.

Recommendation: The OUSD (A&S) should direct the F-35 program office to consider the results of its future technology readiness assessment of all Block 4 technologies and incorporate the cost and schedule risks of developing those technologies in the next update to its Block 4 cost estimate to ensure that the estimate meets the comprehensive leading practices. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In response to this report, DOD stated that it continues to evaluate technology readiness levels for Block 4. It noted that Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering would conduct and independent technology readiness assessment of the Block 4 effort, which the program would use to inform future cost estimates. In May 2020, the F-35 Program Office issued a Technology Readiness Assessment Plan for Block 4. This plan outlines an incremental assessment approach aligned with Block 4 capability drops beginning with the drop scheduled for April 2021. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider revising Section 224(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, to extend DOD's Block 4 reporting requirement until all Block 4 capabilities are fielded to ensure that Congress is aware of cost and schedule growth beyond 2023. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has not extended the Block 4 reporting requirement in Section 224(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. We will continue to monitor any action the Congress may take in this regard.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should establish an analysis plan for the evaluation of OPN-funded pilot program availabilities, based on the leading practices for pilot programs. This analysis plan should identify opportunities to evaluate schedule outcomes of pilot program availabilities as compared to non-pilot program availabilities and document a process for evaluating lessons learned from the pilot program (Recommendation 1).

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

Comments: The Department of the Navy concurred with our recommendation in May 2020, stating that it would establish an analysis plan for evaluating Other Procurement, Navy-funded pilot program availabilities. In July 2020, the Director, Maintenance & Modernization, within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Ship Programs, stated that the Navy has drafted this analysis plan, which is now undergoing required Department of Defense (DOD) reviews. The Director stated that he expects this review process to be completed sometime in late summer 2020. Once complete, he stated that his office will provide the analysis plan to GAO for review to confirm that it satisfies our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA implements the planned initiative to routinely examine annual case reviews performed by DOD components to help ensure that fees collected into the FMS transportation accounts are accurate. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS and DOD components to establish a written process to monitor the timeliness of components' delivery reporting to help ensure that fees collected into the FMS transportation accounts are accurate. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA finalizes and implements internal guidance on how to conduct and document DSCA's monthly review of expenditures from the FMS transportation accounts, including what information should be reviewed and how to identify and follow up on discrepancies. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS to finalize written guidance to DFAS on how to generate the reports needed for DSCA's monthly review of expenditures from the FMS transportation accounts, including the type of analysis needed. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS and other DOD components to finalize the planned guidance to DFAS for the review and realignment of expenditures from the FMS transportation accounts to ensure reviews are consistent and include all expenditures. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD Chief Management Officer direct the task force, in consultation with the resale organizations, to reassess its methodology for estimating IT costs of consolidation, and make any necessary adjustments to its range of IT cost estimates and provide that updated information to Congress. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that it had intended to convene an IT working group to reassess the methodology and begin detailed IT consolidation planning, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed this plan. DOD also said that the working group will form as soon as conditions allow and estimated that the working group will complete its work by October 31, 2020. 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 Chief Management Officer provide additional written information to Congress on the comments and concerns from the military departments and resale organizations on the task force's November 2018 business case analysis, as well as the task force's response to those comments and concerns. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. In its written comments on our report, DOD stated that all the submitted comments were considered in the department's decision-making process; that all of the military department secretariats agreed with above-store consolidation, despite their comments on the business case analysis; and that the military department comments regarding the business case analysis were shared with congressional committee professional staff, even though the comments were not included in DOD's report to Congress so as to protect the department's deliberative process. In an August 2020 memorandum to GAO, DOD provided similar comments, stating that it considered all comments in its decision-making process and did not attach the comments to its report to Congress in order to protect DOD's internal deliberations. If DOD takes action to respond to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that DOD components develop plans with scheduled completion dates to implement the four remaining CDIP tasks overseen by DOD CIO. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense identifies a DOD component to oversee the implementation of the seven CDIP tasks not overseen by DOD CIO and report on progress implementing them. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that DOD components accurately monitor and report information on the extent that users have completed the Cyber Awareness Challenge training as well as the number of users whose access to the network was revoked because they have not completed the training. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO ensures all DOD components, including DARPA, require their users to take the Cyber Awareness Challenge training developed by DISA. (Recommendation 5)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct a component to monitor the extent to which practices are implemented to protect the department's network from key cyberattack techniques. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO assesses the extent to which senior leaders' have more complete information to make risk-based decisions—and revise the recurring reports (or develop a new report) accordingly. Such information could include DOD's progress on implementing (a) cybersecurity practices identified in cyber hygiene initiatives and (b) cyber hygiene practices to protect DOD networks from key cyberattack techniques. (Recommendation 7)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander, in coordination with the military services and the Coast Guard, develop a process for tracking data during the first 3 years of the Global Household Goods Contract to inform its planned manpower study during the third year of the contract to more precisely determine DP3 manpower needs and associated costs. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander develop performance metrics for those DP3 activities that will not be a part of the Global Household Goods Contract, such as servicemember counseling and claims resolution that will, at least in part, continue to be performed by the military services. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should ensure that the TRANSCOM Commander articulate the linkage, where appropriate, between DP3 performance metrics, including Global Household Goods Contract performance indicators, and overarching program goals. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD (S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance requiring the military departments to monitor work order completion for housing privatized under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative based on a combination of resident input, timeliness of work order completion, and number of repeat work orders for the same repair. The guidance also required increased tracking of MHPI project work orders by installation staff. Moving forward, the ASD(S) plans to issue quarterly program review guidance that establishes oversight objectives for the military departments to monitor the physical condition of MHPI housing over the duration of their project ground leases, formalizing the requirement that the data be monitored by the Chief Housing Officer. DOD expects this to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Secretary of the Army has taken several steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the Army published the Portfolio and Asset Management Handbook creating a multi-tiered assessment approach of performance metrics to measure the health of each privatized home through inspection, assessment, satisfaction, and feedback. The Army and the private housing partners revised the Incentive Fee Performance Management Plan, placing increased emphasis on resident satisfaction and work order/maintenance management. The Army also put Commanders in charge, ensuring Army leadership at every Army installation is tracking housing quality and safety. In late 2020, the Army plans to review and evaluate these actions and make a determination by 31 Jan 2021 if any changes or revisions are needed to best implement the recommendation. As such, we will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Air Force is engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the Air Force tasked each of the Military Housing Offices to inspect all move-in, move-out, and change of occupancy maintenance events and all emergency, urgent, and life, health, and safety work orders, which is outlined in Air Force guidance. The Air Force is also engaging in several ongoing actions. In response to a memo to the military departments to provide consistency of performance incentive fees, the Air Force was negotiating with the privatized housing project owners to update performance incentive fee metrics in accordance with ASD directed categories and weightings. As of August 2020, agreements had been finalized with 2 partners and work was ongoing with the remaining partners. In addition, the Air Force was working with the project owners to deploy Satisfacts, a survey tool to independently measure resident satisfaction with projects' work order performance, across all Air Force projects with an expected completion by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these recommendations.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy and Marine Corps are engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a centralized electronic data warehouse, which receives data from privatized housing partner maintenance systems to display work order and survey performance dashboards. By February 2021, the Navy expects to complete the development of metrics displayed by the data warehouse to include key service call performance metrics and resident feedback data. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing a web-based monitoring matrix tool housing officials can use to evaluate the performance of privatized housing partners. The tool is intended to provide improved tracking capabilities and improved accessibility to information, thus providing more consistent oversight and improved advocacy service members and their families. The Navy is also working to hire 247 additional Navy and Marine Corps housing staff to review and analyze private partner provided recurring maintenance and customer satisfaction reports in an effort to strengthen oversight and monitoring, with an estimated completion of September 2020. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the status of these and other efforts.

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

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

Comments: e Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD stated that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, plans to issue a policy directing the military departments to establish, to the maximum extent practical, minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for MHPI housing unit work order collection to aid in comparability across installations and projects, and for tracking trends over time. However, DOD noted that the department cannot mandate changes to existing MHPI project legal documents. DOD estimates that this effort will be completed by December 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment require the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by the private housing partners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance directing the military departments to exercise proper oversight to ensure Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects perform in accordance with legal agreements, to include due diligence in monitoring and auditing project maintenance records and other project performance data. The guidance also required military departments to review their entire portfolios of MHPI projects to ensure accurate and appropriate work order management processes. In response to the new guidance, DOD noted that the military departments put in place appropriate oversight measures and undertook the required reviews, though the investigations of project business practices were ongoing in some cases. As another step, the ASD(S) plans to issue guidance directing the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by their respective MHPI Project Owners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. DOD expects this to be completed by the end of September 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation based on the fact that the draft report listed the incorrect office as the source for addressing the deficiency, but subsequently changed its response to concur after the recommendation was directed to the appropriate office in the final report. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) plans to issue guidance establishing a department-wide process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way effective with the survey collection effort in Fiscal Year 2021. The department expects this effort to be completed by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) would provide additional explanation of the MHPI resident satisfaction data collected and reported in future annual Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) reports to Congress, effective with the annual report covering fiscal year 2019. DOD noted that the additional information will include, among other things, an explanation of the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data. As of August 2020, the annual MHPI report covering fiscal year 2018 was in final coordination and the department noted that the report would addresses a vast majority, but not all, of the requirements identified in our recommendation. DOD noted that the additional information would be provided in the next annual MHPI report. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its response, DOD noted that the Army developed a "Plain Language" briefing as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that included the Army Housing Office's roles, responsibilities, location, and contact information at each privatized housing project site. DOD noted that the intent of the briefing was to ensure that all residents were aware of their ability to directly contact Army Housing Office and/or the Garrison Commanders. DOD stated that the briefing was disseminated to all of the Military Housing Offices, who are using it in newcomer briefings, and stated that the briefing would be provided to all current residents of privatized military housing, but that measure would not be tracked due to attrition. In addition, DOD noted that Headquarters, Department of the Army was tasking Army Materiel Command to develop a more detailed plan to communicate to residents the difference between the Army Housing Office and the private housing partner. The Army's intent is to not only capture residents upon their arrival at an installation, but making the services of the MHO known over the duration of a resident's time on at installation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy has taken various steps to address this recommendation, with additional steps planned. For example, the Navy has ensured that each installation has a specific issue resolution process description marketing flyer available, both in hard copy and on the public housing websites, with a reminder that residents can contact both the privatized housing property manager and the Navy housing office with any issues. Moreover, every housing unit has been provided with a refrigerator magnet reminding residents that they can and should contact the Navy housing office if they have any issues with their home. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have established a requirement to contact each privatized housing resident not later than 15 days after move-in and again 60 days after move-in to provide an opportunity to request assistance and remind them of available support. Moving forward, the Navy has an ongoing effort to require private housing companies to market the same messaging as the service issue resolution processes for the MHOs that they support, for consistent advocacy messaging to the tenants. The information will be added to PPV partner websites, printed material and resident handbooks. The Navy also plans to use its annual survey to tracks resident satisfaction and awareness of the Navy's issue resolution process, with expected completion by October 2020. In addition, the Marine Corps has identified a near-term initiative to procure name tags for all MHO employees to wear, identifying themselves as distinct and separate from privatized housing property management company, which will be standardized across all USMC installations. The Marine Corps also plans to develop a standard welcome aboard package to include magnets and other items with key point of contact information. The Marine Corps expects these efforts to be completed by the end of September 2020.

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

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

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, as the Chief Housing Officer, planned to issue a policy establishing the assessment of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project financial viability as part of quarterly program reviews as a long-term requirement. The department noted that the program review data would be augmented by input from the MHPI companies, who are assessing the likely impact of proposed initiatives in conjunction with their third party lenders. The department expected this effort to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should change its definition for setting operational availability for ships in its Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System policy by adding information that defines the operational availability requirement by mission area in addition to the ship level and includes all equipment failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops a program-wide process for measuring, collecting, and tracking information on how ALIS is affecting the performance of the F-35 fleet to include, but not be limited to, its effects on mission capability rates. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the F-35 Program Executive Officer, develops and implements a strategy for the re-design of ALIS. The strategy should be detailed enough to clearly identify and assess the goals, key risks or uncertainties, and costs of re-designing the system. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering should direct the Laboratories and Personnel Office to take steps to ensure that the details of the pilot program's data protections are incorporated into the existing agreements. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure the designated entity conducts a comprehensive, systematic analysis to identify the underlying, interrelated causes of overseas surface ship maintenance delays. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command assesses and mitigates risks posed by any challenges, such as persistent delays and capacity limitations, to successful implementation of its new maintenance approach in Japan. (Recommendation 4)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command conducts analysis to include overseas maintenance requirements as part of its long-term maintenance plan to support the planned growth and readiness of the fleet. (Recommendation 5)

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of NIST should establish time frames for completing NIST's initiatives, to include the information security measurement program and the cybersecurity framework starter profile, to enable the identification of sector-wide improvements from using the framework in the protection of critical infrastructure from cyber threats. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology: Office of the Director
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments provided in July 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. It noted that to further establish its Cybersecurity Measurement program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will document its Cybersecurity Measurement program's scope, objectives, and approach, including an inventory of existing measurement resources. Additionally, to further amplify small business awareness of cybersecurity, and of the Cybersecurity Framework, it noted that NIST will develop and publish two Cybersecurity Framework starter profiles tailored toward risk management of business processes important to small business owners. The expected completion date is September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments provided in April 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stated that it concurred with our recommendation. The department stated that it routinely shared framework guidance provided by the Department of Homeland Security and discussed the framework as part of its monthly Sector conference calls and biannual Sector Meetings. It also added that the department will continue to strengthen its coordination efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In written comments provided in July 2020, the Department of Defense concurred with our recommendation. The department noted that it had developed processes and resources to help determine the type of framework adoption across the Defense Industrial Base. These include conducting assessments on the implementation of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171 , "Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations;" and releasing the Defense Industrial Base Implementation Guide for the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. However, the department has yet to report on sector-wide improvements using these processes and resources. Until it does so, its critical infrastructure sector may not fully understand the value of the framework to better protect its critical infrastructure from cyber threats. The expected completion dates are in September and November 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: In written comments provided in February 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it partially agreed with our recommendation. It noted that DOE will coordinate with the Energy Sector to develop an understanding of sector-wide improvements from use of the framework. The expected completion date is December 2021.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments provided in July 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. It noted that it will consult with the Water Sector Coordinating Council, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as appropriate, to investigate options to collect and report sector-wide improvements, consistent with statutory requirements and the Sector's willingness to participate. However, the department did not provide a timeframe for completing these actions.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the General Services Administration, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the Coordinating Council and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, the General Services Administration (GSA), in coordination with its co-SSA, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), provided documentation demonstrating that it had initiated steps to collect and report on sector-wide improvements from use of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework across its critical infrastructure sector. Specifically, the agencies from the government sector had submitted their risk management reports to DHS and OMB that described agencies' action plans to implement the framework, as required under Executive Order 13800 and evaluated the agencies against the five functions of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework: Identify, Detect, Protect, Respond, and Recover. The risk management reports are included as part of OMB's FISMA Annual Report to Congress. According to OMB's FISMA Annual Report to Congress, OMB and DHS determined that 71 of 96 agencies (74 percent) have cybersecurity programs that are either at risk or high risk. As a result, improvements were identified in the form of four core actions in the Federal Cybersecurity Risk Determination Report and Action Plan, which include: (1) Implementing the Cyber Threat Framework to increase cybersecurity threat awareness among Federal agencies, (2) Standardize IT and cybersecurity capabilities, (3) Consolidate agency SOCs to improve incident detection and response capabilities, and (4) Drive accountability across agencies through improved governance processes, recurring risk assessments, and OMB's engagements with agency leadership. We are waiting for additional information from GSA and DHS on the status of the four core actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments provided in January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated that it concurred with our recommendation. The department noted that it would work with the appropriate entities to refine and communicate best practices to the sector.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sectors using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: In written comments provided in February 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. It noted that in coordination with the IT Sector Coordinating Council, the department recently issued a survey to small and mid-sized IT sector partners to better understand framework adoption and use within the IT sector. Once the results of the survey are received, DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will determine the feasibility of issuing similar surveys to other sectors, and the potential timelines for completing sector-specific survey modifications, issuing surveys, compiling responses, and developing white papers on the status of framework adoption for each sector. The department expects completion of this work by December 31, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s) such as the SCC and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: In written comments provided in April 2020, the Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that it concurred with our recommendation. It noted that the department (through the Office of the Secretary, Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response) and the Department of Homeland Security (through the Transportation Security Administration and United States Coast Guard) will coordinate as Co-Sector-Specific Agencies for the Transportation Systems Sector to finalize the development and distribution of a survey instrument to determine the level and type of framework adoption in the Sector. The department expects completion of this work by December 31, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 10)

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

Comments: In written comments provided in January 2020, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) stated that it agreed with our recommendation. The department noted that it will assess using the identified initiatives and their viability for collecting and reporting sector-wide improvements from the use of the NIST Framework. The department did not provide a timeframe for completing these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The 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 Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the military departments, collect consistent information on the replacement costs of military physicians and dentists and use this information to inform investment decisions in the package of incentives to recruit and retain military physicians and dentists. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the military departments, collect consistent information on current and historical retention data, to include data on the percentage of eligible physicians and dentists who accept retention bonuses, and use this information to inform investment decisions in the package of incentives to retain military physicians and dentists. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the military departments, collect consistent information on private sector civilian wages and use this information to help inform investment decisions in the package of incentives to recruit and retain military physicians and dentists. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should direct the Department's relevant bureaus to work with Embassy Beirut to establish, as appropriate, and consolidate targets for each of the security-related performance indicators. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State: Office of the Secretary
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 State should direct the Department's relevant bureaus to work with Embassy Beirut to collect and review performance data for key security-related performance indicators. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct DSCA to revise the inspection due dates it establishes for items requiring enhanced EUM for the Office of Defense Cooperation in Beirut to align with DOD's standards for EUM by considering the date of last inspection. (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 the Air Force, in coordination with ANG and AFR, should ensure that AFSOC has the organizational capacity to effectively initiate, coordinate, and execute ARC mobilizations, to include ensuring timely and reliable notification of requirements to those units. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Director, MDA should coordinate with the defense intelligence community on the agency's collective priorities for threat assessments and work with the defense intelligence community to determine if additional resources are needed to support the agency's threat assessment needs. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, stating that MDA will continue to follow established processes to identify threat assessment needs and to determine if additional resources are required. However, we have yet to see sufficient evidence that MDA is collectively prioritizing its threat assessment requests. We understand that MDA prioritizes its threat assessment requests within the distinct lanes of intelligence product types. We have yet to see evidence that shows MDA has taken steps to also prioritize amongst those lanes. For example, MDA could coordinate with the intelligence community to establish a formal process or venue through which such macro-level prioritization could be conveyed and discussed. In April 2020, MDA told us that it did not plan to transfer funds to the intelligence community in fiscal year 2021 for any unique MDA intelligence needs. By not taking actions to collectively prioritize its threat assessment needs or providing the intelligence community with resources, MDA continues to run the risk of not receiving the threat assessments it needs when it needs them.

Recommendation: The Director, MDA should fully engage the defense intelligence community on key threat-related missile defense acquisition processes and decisions, including providing insight into and obtaining input from the defense intelligence community on the threat space MDA establishes for the BMDS and the threat parameters and threat models MDA assigns to BMDS elements as design requirements and test cases. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, stating that MDA will continue to fully engage the intelligence community on key threat-related Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) acquisition processes and decisions. We have observed improvements in MDA including the intelligence community in some of these key threat-related processes and decisions, some of which were discussed in our report. Also, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the NGI and include in the report, among several items, updated threat assessments by the intelligence community informing system threshold and objective requirements. To this end, we are aware that MDA consulted with the intelligence community on the threat space and threat-related requirements that are being considered for the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI). The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering stated in a September 2019 memo to GAO that MDA also coordinates in weekly Technical Interchange Meetings with the intelligence community on the threat space bounds for parameters that have high uncertainty. We are also aware of ongoing efforts between MDA and the intelligence community to jointly model missile threats that could directly be used in MDA ground tests. These efforts address much of our recommendation; however, we have yet to see whether MDA will coordinate with the intelligence community on the threat parameters assigned to BMDS elements in the BMD System Specification. We intend to follow up with MDA to determine the extent to which MDA has implemented our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Director, MDA and the Director, DIA to coordinate on establishing a process for MDA to obtain validation of its threat models. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation, stating that the department will re-examine the most cost-effective approach to meet the intent of DIA validation to support development and fielding of effective Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) elements. We have observed significant progress on this recommendation, primarily through the joint coordination occurring through the Defense Intelligence Ballistic Missile Analysis Committee (DIBMAC) Joint Modeling Tiger Team, where multiple pathways are being explored. Our recommendation calls for the intelligence community and MDA to coordinate on establishing a process for MDA to obtain validation of its threat models. We are also open to other pathways, such as intelligence community and MDA jointly producing threat models or MDA making direct use of threat models built by the intelligence community. Our objective is that MDA use threat models that are validated by the intelligence community when such models are necessary to inform formal BMDS processes, products, and decisions. Any pathway that MDA and the intelligence community agree upon that yields this result meets the intent of our recommendation. We believe that through the tiger team initiative, such coordination is occurring and therefore the closure of this recommendation as implemented in imminent. We are waiting to see: (1) whether MDA and intelligence community establish a formal process and/or jointly sign a memorandum of agreement to codify the process; and (2) the production and use of an intelligence community-validated threat model by MDA in a ground test or other Models and Simulation application.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD[C]) should include an assessment of risks related to contractor ownership as part of its ongoing efforts to plan and conduct a department-wide fraud risk assessment. As part of this assessment, consistent with leading practices, DOD should involve relevant stakeholders with knowledge of emerging risks and use this information to help inform other types of risk assessments across the department, including for national security concerns. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Air Force's finalized Space C2 program's acquisition strategy includes, at a minimum, the following elements:

• acquisition and contracting approach;
• program management structure, including authorities and oversight responsibilities;
• plans for platform and infrastructure development;
• requirements management and development approach, and plans for prioritization;
• risk management plans, including how the program will identify and mitigate risks;
• metrics for measuring quality of software, and how those results will be shared with external stakeholders;
• manpower assessment identifying program workforce needs and state of expertise in Agile methods;
• requirements for reporting program progress to decision makers; and
• yearly funding levels. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment directed the Air Force (this work has now been moved to the Space Force) to provide an Acquisition Strategy for approval in November 2019. DOD noted that a strategy template provided to the Air Force included the elements identified by GAO. As of July 2020, the Acquisition Strategy had been submitted to the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, but officials stated that the strategy is still in review and has not yet been finalized.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should ensure that the Air Force's Space C2 program conducts periodic independent reviews to assess the program's approach to developing software and provide, as needed, advice to the program and recommendations for improving the program's development and progress. Participants could include, but are not limited to, officials from the Defense Innovation Board, the Defense Digital Service, the office of the Air Force Chief Software Advisor, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment's Special Assistant for Software Acquisition. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment will assess the need for future periodic and independent reviews of the program. As of July 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it had planned to direct an independent review of the program to be conducted by a Federally Funded Research and Development Center and to be completed by September 2020. However, lack of funding and restrictions related to COVID-19 impacted planning. The office still plans to direct this review, but details are pending.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps updates the Marine Corps' civilian personnel budget formulation and execution policies to include guidance for the major subordinate commands to manage civilian personnel to FTEs. (Recommendation 1)

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps identifies and reconciles any differences between the Marine Corps' internal civilian personnel data and the civilian personnel data the Department of the Navy uses to support its annual budget request. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the department implements the pilot program by releasing at least 20 percent of newly custom-developed code as open source software (OSS). (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense did not concur with this recommendation and as of July 2020 has not yet implemented it. According to a December 2019 department letter provided to GAO, the 20 percent software release target is unlikely achievable due to the nature of code that is custom developed by the department. However, the department is mandated by law to implement the open source software pilot program established by the Office of Management and Budget's memorandum M-16-21. Releasing at least 20 percent of newly custom-developed code is a requirement of this program. GAO will continue to follow-up on the status of the pilot program.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the department identifies a measure to calculate the percentage of code released to gauge its progress on implementing the pilot program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense partially agreed with this recommendation and as of July 2020 has not yet implemented it. According to a December 2019 department letter sent to GAO, the department intends to release updated guidance on the release of custom-developed code as open-source software and will include metrics. The department estimated that the updated policy will be completed in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2020. GAO will follow-up with the agency to obtain the status of the updated guidance.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence requires that DOD components (including the military departments and the Defense Logistics Agency) monitor the use of PACS at their installations. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Office of Provost Marshal General monitors the use of PACS at Army installations. (Recommendation 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness develops appropriate performance measures and associated goals for the timely resolution of the Defense Biometric Identification System technical issues to facilitate improved PACS performance. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors had been approved. However, as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of that approval.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, DOD's training curriculum for cross-functional team members and their supervisors had been approved, and the training had been provided to presidential appointees and their staffs. However, as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of that approval or training.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. According to an OCMO official, as of April 2020, work on the report on the successes and failures of cross-functional teams was ongoing. We will continue to monitor DOD's process of developing its report; as of September 2020, DOD has not provided documentation of the report being drafted, reviewed, or approved.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In its comments on a subsequent report on the department's implementation of section 911, the department stated that funding for all Secretary of Defense-empowered cross functional teams, including the electromagnetic spectrum operations cross-functional team, was in place through fiscal year 2020, and that they were exploring options for dedicated funding for cross-functional teams in future years. As of April 2020, according to an OCMO official, these dedicated funding sources had not been established. DOD has not provided evidence of their funding as of September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 assess the risk associated with staffing, equipping, and training of new units that it plans to activate in an accelerated manner for the purposes of conducting multi-domain operations, taking into consideration the assessments performed on the first activated ICEWS battalion and the 915th Cyber Warfare Support Battalion. (Recommendation 3)

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should establish and document results-oriented goals that include specific targets or milestones for the IC CAE program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should establish and document strategies to achieve the results-oriented goals that are established for the IC CAE program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should develop and document a process to identify and continuously evaluate external factors that could affect the program's ability to achieve identified goals. This should include, but not be limited to, a consideration of program branding and post-grant sustainment. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that in preparation for the transition of the Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program from the Defense Intelligence Agency to ODNI, the ODNI commissioned an independent study in 2019 to assess program performance and barriers to success. ODNI noted that this study, in conjunction with the GAO report, are informing the development of a program strategy and sound business practices that will prescribe goals and measurable objectives. These efforts are expected to be completed in late 2020, at which time ODNI plans to develop a companion Strategic Implementation Plan that will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE grant-receiving institutions, legacy schools, and stakeholders. ODNI noted that the plan which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, will include an annual evaluation process linked to survey results and documented lessons learned. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should define and document comprehensive performance measures for the IC CAE program, collect and evaluate the completeness and reliability of information it receives from grant recipients and IC elements, and report this information on a regular basis. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that it held virtual listening session in early fiscal year 2020 with Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program managers and principal investigators to inform the development of meaningful performance measures and reporting criteria. ODNI noted that the criteria was collected using standardized, repeatable processes to ensure both accuracy and completeness during site visits and performance reviews for active grant recipients. ODNI further noted that it plans to integrate the criteria from the listening sessions into the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should establish a requirement for and develop a plan to periodically evaluate the IC CAE program's performance through objective measurement and systematic analysis. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that it held virtual listening session in early fiscal year 2020 with Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) program managers and principal investigators to inform the development of meaningful performance measures and reporting criteria. ODNI noted that the criteria was collected using standardized, repeatable processes to ensure both accuracy and completeness during site visits and performance reviews for active grant recipients. ODNI further noted that it plans to integrate the criteria from the listening sessions into the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should develop a process for assessing why some IC elements are not participating in the IC CAE program and address these reasons in order to ensure the program is structured to meet the needs of IC elements. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, ODNI noted that was in the process of developing an engagement strategy for the reintegration of Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (IC CAE) legacy schools to ensure prior investments are capitalized on and to maximize outreach efforts. ODNI also noted that it is routinely leveraging multiple interagency IC-wide working groups to engage with IC elements and stakeholders to increase its understanding of barriers to engaging with IC CAE, as well as to develop a community-wide understanding of the benefits associated with engagement. ODNI plans to include the results in the Strategic Implementation Plan, which it expects to complete in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, and noted that it will routinely update these efforts to ensure best practices are being implemented. The ODNI stated that it will use this ongoing process and dialogue to assess and seek to address such barriers and to improve ongoing IC element participation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of National Intelligence should clearly define IC elements' roles and responsibilities for participation in the IC CAE program to better facilitate interagency collaboration in support of the program. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) concurred with this recommendation. In its March 2020 response, ODNI noted that it was leveraging multiple interagency forums in an effort to improve IC element participation in the IC CAE program. ODNI also noted that it would and encourage the standardization and use of common practices by leveraging IC CAE schools for recruitment and hiring within diverse communities. Together, ODNI noted that it will use input from these efforts to shape a collaborative way ahead for increased and improved IC engagement based on community roles and responsibilities. These efforts will also be integrated into the program's Strategic Implementation Plan, which is expected to be completed in late 2021 and will set the foundation for behavior and reporting criteria across all IC CAE institutions and stakeholders. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

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 Director of JIATF-West should establish a vital few performance measures that are consistently measured over time. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Joint Interagency Task Force West
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, DOD officials reported that JIATF-W identified measures of performance in critical mission areas that have not previously been captured, including the Counter Narcotics Operations Center, Operational Intelligence, and Mission Support units. However, it is unclear whether the measures JIATF-W identified are higher-level and part of a "vital few" rather than just additional output-based performance measures. GAO will need to review the new measures to understand whether DOD/JIATF-W's actions are aligned with the intent of the recommendation. GAO will continue to follow-up with DOD/JIATF-W on the their progress toward implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of JIATF-West should establish specific targets that set a minimal level of performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Joint Interagency Task Force West
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, DOD stated JIATF-W updated its Assessment Instruction to codify baseline standards and processes for collecting metrics in its directorates and would send personnel to train to improve their ability to measure performance against DOD minimal standards. However, it is unclear whether JIATF-W has set targets. We will continue to follow up with DOD/JIATF-W on their progress toward implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should develop outcome-based performance measures for the DHS JTFs that are consistent. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS stated it concurred with the GAO recommendation. In December 2019, DHS officials stated it is overseeing the implementation of measures that contain outcome-based direction for assessing counter drug operations effects, which requires a phased approach, and added that DHS hopes to achieve two consecutive years of consistent reporting of performance measures. The estimated completion date for addressing this recommendation is June 2020. GAO will continue to follow-up with DHS on its progress towards implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, after consulting with key stakeholders (e.g., the Chief Financial Officers Council), should develop a strategy for ensuring that agencies communicate sufficient and timely internal control plans for effective oversight of disaster relief funds. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) disagreed with our recommendation. In the agency's comment section of the GAO report, OMB staff stated that OMB did not believe the sufficiency or timeliness of control plans present material issues that warranted OMB action. While OMB acknowledged that almost all agency control plans were submitted after the statutory deadline, OMB staff stated that this delay in itself neither indicated the absence of controls nor the effectiveness of those controls. Further, OMB staff stated that it is agency management and not OMB that has responsibility for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. While agencies were responsible for submitting their internal control plans, federal law placed the responsibility of establishing the criteria for the internal control plans with OMB. Therefore, we believe that our recommendation is warranted. In January 2020, OMB informed us that there are no additional updates at this time regarding status, actions, or timelines to develop a strategy. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: We recommend that the Acting Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment to ensure it conducts a comprehensive assessment of the effect that its contract financing and profit policies have on the defense industry and update that assessment on a recurring basis. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. The Department stated that it would seek fiscal year 2020 funds to contract a study on DOD contract financing policies and their effect on the defense industry. In September 2020, DOD stated that this action would be completed by December 31, 2021. The first phase of the report is estimated to be completed September 30, 2021. The department secured funds to complete the study and a contract was awarded on April 23, 2020.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager and relevant NNSA officials and contractor representatives at NNSA sites should take steps to improve the accuracy of FIMS data related to NNSA's infrastructure supporting explosives activities. These steps should include reviewing and updating information about associations of assets with primary and secondary explosives missions; ensuring that those who provide asset information to FIMS administrators understand the data they need to provide; and clarifying how to accurately enter information in FIMS for explosives assets that are not buildings. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of July 2020, we are currently reviewing agency information and plan to reach out as needed for additional information for this recommendation.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager, in consultation with members of NNSA's Energetics Coordinating Committee, should, as the agency revises its Defense Programs Strategic Plan for Energetic Materials, include discussion of identified challenges related to explosives activities, such as data quality, workforce levels, and safety as well as any actions to address them, as appropriate, or document the rationale for why identified challenges were not included. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: Based on trade press reports, NNSA appears to be taking several actions that, collectively, may serve to close this recommendation as implemented. As of July 2020, we are awaiting information from agency officials and will update the status of this recommendation when the information is received.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager, in consultation with members of NNSA's Energetics Coordinating Committee, should, as the agency revises its Defense Programs Strategic Plan for Energetic Materials, include fully developed elements of an effective strategic plan, such as a clearly identified mission statement and performance goals that are quantifiable, set time frames for completion, and list responsible parties to carry out specific activities for all strategic goals. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: Based on trade press reports, NNSA appears to be making progress implementing this recommendation. As of July 2020, we have requested additional information from agency officials and will update the recommendation status when the information is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop written criteria for ranking Section 219 projects for funding, taking into account a clear set of priorities, such as those identified by recent congressional direction.

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

Comments: In November 2019, the Department of Defense indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers plans to develop and implement written criteria for ranking Section 219 projects by March 2020. We will evaluate actions taken by the Corps once they are complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct DHA to ensure that MTFs' referral management center staff are trained to process and accurately document information in MHS Genesis about specialty care referrals, including the receipt of CLRs, the submission of referral results, and the closure of referrals. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct DHA to ensure that MHS Genesis is configured to produce reports that accurately reflect the use and outcomes of specialty care referrals. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into installation master planning, including—at a minimum—what sources of climate projections to use, how to use projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director, MDA, should utilize additional schedule margin afforded by the EPAA Phase 3 delay to conduct additional testing necessary to thoroughly assess the capabilities and limitations of Phase 3 against IRBMs and a raid scenario prior to delivery. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Department of Defense partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that all EPAA Phase 3 BMDS functions requiring a flight test environment were already successfully demonstrated and that MDA has addressed the intent of our recommendation by adding ground tests to further assess EPAA Phase 3 Capabilities. However, in order for the agency to meet the full intent of our recommendation, additional flight testing to demonstrate capability against EPAA Phase 3 threats, including intermediate-range threats and raid scenarios, is necessary.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should develop the capability to present servicemembers' race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Army's investigations and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3) implementing another method identified by the Army. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Army officials said that the Army was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity and the ability to aggregate the data, in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to implement these categories in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop the capability to present servicemembers' race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Air Force's investigations and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3) implementing another method identified by the Air Force. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Air Force officials said that the Air Force was working to implement uniform standards for collection of military justice data and records in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to implement these standards in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop the capability to present servicemembers' race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Navy's investigations and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3) implementing another method identified by the Navy. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was working to implement the uniform standards for race and ethnicity in their new case management system which was currently under development, and may implement changes to interface with Navy investigations and personnel databases. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commandant of the Coast Guard develops the capability to present servicemembers' race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Coast Guard's investigations and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3) implementing another method identified by the Coast Guard. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In May 2019, the Coast Guard stated that it would implement modifications to the Coast Guard's military justice database to support the tracking of race, ethnicity and gender information as part of a longer term initiative to capture all of the data elements required by the uniform standard adopted by the Department of Defense. They estimated this would be completed in September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military services and the Secretary of Homeland Security, should issue guidance that establishes criteria to specify when data indicating possible racial, ethnic, or gender disparities in the military justice process should be further reviewed, and that describes the steps that should be taken to conduct such a review. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, agreeing with the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendation to direct it to more appropriate entities. That change was made before the report was issued. In October 2019, DOD officials said that the department was exploring the feasibility of conducting relevant research to inform implementation of this recommendation. They said that this research will explore differences in military justice data, seek to identify potential factors that contribute to observed racial/ethnic disparities, and develop standardized tracking elements so trends can be monitored across DOD. They estimated that this research may be concluded in March 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should consider the feasibility, to include the benefits and drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete information for all nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Army's databases, such as information on the servicemembers' race, ethnicity, gender, offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 8)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Army officials said that the Army was developing the capability to collect data of race, ethnicity, gender, offense and punishment imposed for nonjudicial punishments in accordance with the criteria established by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018. They expected to complete this action in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should consider the feasibility, to include the benefits and drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete information for all nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Navy's databases, such as information on the servicemembers' race, ethnicity, gender, offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, Navy officials said that the Navy was refining its processes to standardize the documentation and reporting requirements of all nonjudicial punishment cases. They further stated that the Marine Corps currently has the ability to capture this information, but in two different systems that could be extracted and assimilated with any system as required. They expected to implement these changes in December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commandant of the Coast Guard considers the feasibility, to include the benefits and drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete information for all nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Coast Guard's databases, such as information on the servicemembers' race, ethnicity, gender, offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In May 2019, the Coast Guard stated that it would consider the feasibility of collecting and maintain complete information for all nonjudicial punishments cases through a military justice and personnel work group. The estimated completion date for this action was not yet determined.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the military services and the Secretary of Homeland Security, should conduct an evaluation to identify the causes of any disparities in the military justice system, and take steps to address the causes of these disparities as appropriate. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, agreeing with the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendation to direct it to more appropriate entities. We made that change before the report was issued. In October 2019, DOD officials said that the department was exploring the feasibility of conducting a research project to delve into the differences in military justice data to inform implementation of this recommendation. They said that this research will explore differences in military justice data, seek to identify potential factors that contribute to observed racial/ethnic disparities, identify potential disparity indicators, and develop standardized tracking elements so trends can be monitored across DOD. They estimated that this research may be concluded in March 2021.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that Army Materiel Command establishes measures for its depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that Army Materiel Command implements tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Army depot. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command and the Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers establish measures for their depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that Naval Sea Systems Command and the Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers implement tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Navy depot. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that Air Force Materiel Command establishes measures for its depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that Air Force Materiel Command implements tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Air Force depot. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Logistics Command establishes measures for its depots to track facility or equipment conditions that lead to maintenance delays. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps should ensure that Marine Corps Logistics Command implements tracking of the measures for identifying when facility or equipment conditions lead to maintenance delays at each Marine Corp depot. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment develops an approach for managing service depot investments that includes management monitoring and regular reporting to decision makers and Congress on progress. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the department's guidance that addresses software development provides specific, required direction on when and how often to involve users so that such involvement is early and continues through the development of the software and related program components. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and issued an interim Software Acquisition Pathway policy in January 2020 that addresses software development, including direction on user involvement. As of August 2020, this interim policy has not yet been finalized. According to DOD officials, a final policy is currently under development and is expected to be issued by the end of December 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the department's guidance that addresses software development provides specific, required direction on documenting and communicating user feedback to stakeholders during software system development. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has issued an interim Software Acquisition Pathway that addresses software development, including direction on user involvement. According to DOD officials, this interim pathway is planned to be replaced by a final policy that is currently under development and is expected to be issued by the end of December 2020.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should explore the feasibility of requiring a corporate identification number in its inspection database and enabling its website to be searched by that number. This should include exploring the following issues: (1) which corporate identification number would be most appropriate to require; (2) options for obtaining this number from employers; and (3) options for entering this number in its database that would prevent or minimize delays in closing inspection records. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA did not state whether it agreed with this recommendation. The agency acknowledged the potential utility of obtaining a unique identifier from each employer and said it will continue to promote the collection of Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) or Tax Identification Numbers (TIN) whenever possible by issuing a revised memorandum to field staff to reinforce the importance of collecting this information. OSHA stated that it does not view EINs as confidential or protected from disclosure. However, it expressed concerns about protecting TINs and Social Security Numbers from disclosure, and noted that it would not be able to make a data field available for public search if it contained either of these numbers. OSHA also raised concerns about the financial cost associated with redesigning the agency's data system. We encourage OSHA to explore options for addressing these concerns as it further considers how to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should provide information to contracting officials to advise them that the OSHA website is a resource for information about contractors' workplace safety and health records. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and identified implementation timelines. We will monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should explore the feasibility of requiring a safety performance rating for contracts in industries that have relatively high rates of occupational injuries, such as manufacturing, construction, and ship building and repairing. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and identified implementation timelines. We will monitor the agency's progress.

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 Deputy Secretary of Defense assesses the tradeoffs of potential options for expanding public access to military commissions' proceedings by identifying and analyzing associated risks, and, as appropriate, developing a strategy to implement any viable options.

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

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

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

Recommendation: We recommend that the Director, DCMA, in collaboration with the Director, DCAA, develop a mechanism to monitor and assess whether contractor business systems reviews are being completed in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Contract Management Agency
Status: Open

Comments: DCMA concurred with our recommendation and the department notified us in March 2019 that collaboration between DCMA and DCAA to develop a mechanism to increase oversight and improve management of contractor business system audits and determinations had begun. In September 2019, DCMA and DCAA provided lists of the business system reviews planned to be conducted during fiscal year 2020, showing that the data needed for oversight of all CBS reviews is available between the two agencies. Further, an April 2019 DCMA memorandum indicated that DCAA data on planned reviews for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 had been transferred to DCMA and that administrate contracting officers were to conduct risk assessments to identify additional reviews for DCAA to complete in the future. In August 2020, DCMA and DCAA specified the sources of the data provided earlier; DCAA data is collected through its strategic workload and resource initiative and inputted into the DCAA Management Information System while DCMA business system review data continues to be maintained by the functional offices responsible for those reviews. Both agencies stated that progress against planned reviews is tracked and status is reported to management at regular intervals. DCMA also noted a series of new tools designed to enhance surveillance of contractor business systems and implementation of corrective actions. These steps indicate progress towards increased insight into both the completion CBS review and the follow-up that occurs afterward. However It remains unclear to what extent data sharing between DCAA and DCMA to support CBS review planning has been formalized and will continue or the extent to which DCMA headquarters uses this data to assess implementation of its policies for the conduct of CBS reviews.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop annual retention goals for aircraft maintainers by skill level—for both loss and reenlistment rates—in alignment with authorized levels. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, the Air Force stated that it was analyzing a more deliberate promotion rate to fill maintainer staffing gaps at the 5- and 7- levels within the next three years while retaining experienced maintainers longer in those skill levels.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should develop an aircraft maintainer retention strategy, including initiatives that are tailored to the specific needs and challenges of maintainers to help ensure that the Air Force can meet and retain required staffing levels. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, the Air Force stated that it was developing monetary and non-monetary levers that incentivize behaviors to influence retention as well as unit level retention programs and tools, a "Master Technician" Program, and repurposing selective reenlistment bonuses to target mission generation functions versus inventory numbers.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Chief Management Officer establishes a process for identifying and prioritizing available funding to develop and implement initiatives from the cross-functional reform teams. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should clarify whether and how to use the laboratory initiated research authority within the Capital Investment Program. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In December 2018, DOD agreed with our recommendation. In March 2019, DOD reported that the Navy was working on establishing a process for its laboratories to use the funds made available to them through the laboratory initiated research authority and planned to have this new policy in place by September 1, 2019 but was subsequently changed to a new date of October 1, 2019. However, the Navy was unable to finalize its policy prior to the start of the 2020 fiscal year. In February 2020, a senior USD(R&E) official stated that internal discussions between Navy acquisition officials and Navy financial management officials were ongoing. This official further noted that the Navy planned to finalize its policy by December 1, 2020, in time to influence the Navy's fiscal year 2022 budget request.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: (1) To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and (2) To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within OMB concurred with our recommendation, noting that it plans to coordinate with federal agencies on the extent to which they have developed training and guidance. Based on this information, OFPP will work with agencies to determine the most appropriate course of action to address gaps, if any. As of August 2020, OFPP stated that it had not taken any additional actions to implement the recommendation because it is currently focused on implementing Executive Order 13881 "Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products and Materials".

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clarify existing guidance, or provide training or other instruction, to help contracting officials: (1) Address the applicability of the Buy American Act requirements and provide instruction on how to implement the requirements, including in any training developed to implement the Veterans First policy; (2) Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; and (3) Identify sources of information available for determining products' origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred and has since taken action to address some of our three-part recommendation. For example, VA revised its "Procurement Policy Memorandum 2017-12", on April 9, 2019, to better clarify its existing Buy American Act guidance and highlight key factors contracting staff should consider when determining the applicability of Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. Additionally, in October 2019, VA provided GAO briefing slides for a new training to be offered at the agency's acquisition academy that includes specific instruction pertaining to the use of Buy American Act exceptions and waivers. However, VA has yet to address our recommendation that the agency clarify guidance or provide training to help contracting officers identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information. We plan to keep this recommendation open until VA implements guidance or training of this nature and we are able to assess the extent to which it fully addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide guidance, training, or other instruction to help contracting officials: (1) Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; (2) Document determinations of the use of Buy American exceptions for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained; and (3) Identify sources of information available for determining products' origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and has taken steps to implement it. HHS issued a memorandum in February 2019 requiring all contracting officers as part of their continuous learning program to complete the Buy American Statute course, FAC063, offered by the Federal Acquisition Institute. As of February 2020, about 90 percent of contracting officials had taken the required training. However, due to its COVID-19 Pandemic response activities, HHS stated that all of its contracting officials had not completed the training as intended. HHS also developed checklists and guidance related to the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act. We plan to keep this recommendation open until HHS completes its training initiative.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Materiel Command, should assess the effectiveness of the Army depots' hiring, training, and retention programs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Army concurred with our recommendation. In February 2020 the Army provided GAO with an outline of a corrective action plan that identified how the Army plans to address our recommendation. Some of the planned milestone dates for these action items occur in fiscal year 2021. As of June 30, 2020 we consider the actions the Army taking to address our rec as ongoing, and will follow up with the Army later this year or early 2021 to obtain a status update on this rec and attempt to close the rec.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command, should assess the effectiveness of the Navy's shipyards' and fleet readiness centers' hiring, training, and retention programs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Navy concurred with our recommendation. In response to our recommendation that the Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command, should assess the effectiveness of the Navy's shipyards' and fleet readiness centers' hiring, training, and retention programs; the Navy is in the process of collecting information to assess the effectiveness of these programs and considers these efforts ongoing.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Marine Corps, in conjunction with the Marine Corps Logistics Command, should assess the effectiveness of the Marine Corps depots' hiring, training, and retention programs. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Marine Corps concurred with our recommendation. In December of 2019 we began working with the Department of Defense, including each of the Military Service Components to determine how each component would address our recommendation. We successfully heard back from each component except the Marine Corps. As of June 30, 2020 GAO is still engaging with the Department of Defense and the Marine Corps to obtain a status update on the actions taken by the Marine Corps to address our recommendation. GAO will continue following up on this recommendation in 2020 and during the 2021 fiscal year to determine how the Marine Corps has addressed our recommendation so we can close this recommendation if possible.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force, in conjunction with the Air Force Materiel Command, should assess the effectiveness of the Air Force air logistics complexes' hiring, training, and retention programs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Air Force concurred with our recommendation. In December 2019 the Air Force provided GAO with an outline of a corrective action plan that identified how the Air Force plans to address our recommendation. Many of the planned milestone dates for these action items occur in fiscal year 2021. As of June 30, 2020 we consider the actions the Air Force is taking to address our rec as ongoing and will follow up with the Air Force later this year or early 2021 to obtain a status update on this rec and attempt to close the rec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should require monitoring of its processes used for recording all required real property information--to include evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to what extent these activities are being carried out--and remediating any identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The Army concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us that the Army has required monitoring of its processes used for recording all real property information. Specifically, the Army developed a 5-year plan to address the recommendations to improve data quality and accountability in conjunction with the ongoing DOD financial statement audit. The plan reportedly requires measuring results through directed physical inspections and record updates, using a single, standardized Accountable Property System of Record (APSR) for all assets. DOD officials also told us that the Army developed an automated validation and second-person verification to comply with the requirements and business rules of the DOD Real Property Information Model (RPIM), and that it continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Army levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements have been established. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should require monitoring of Navy and Marine Corps processes used for recording all required real property information--to include evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to what extent these activities are being carried out--and remediating any identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: The Navy concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials stated that the Navy required monitoring of its processes used for recording real property information. Specifically, the Navy established a requirement for a 100% inventory check to ensure existence and completeness of its real property information. As part of DOD larger effort to improve its financial management through the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) guidance, DOD officials also told us that the Navy plans to implement the existence and completeness results provided by an independent Public Accounting Firm. Further, it will continue to use OSD's validation and verification tool when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Navy levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had been put in place. Once we receive that documentation, we will review it to assess the extent to which it meets the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should require monitoring of its processes used for recording all required real property information--to include evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to what extent these activities are being carried out--and remediating any identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: The Air Force concurred with this recommendation. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us that the Air Force has required monitoring of its processes for recording all required real property information. For example, the Air Force plans to establish a Data Quality Program (DQP) within the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Information Technology Functional Management Office to incorporate requirements for improving accuracy of its asset information in its Accountable Property System of Record (APSR). The Air Force also plans to revise its instruction AFI 32-9005 to define responsibility for the accuracy of data at the lowest level. Further, it plans to require use of OSD's validation and verification tool to identify and correct inaccuracies when providing annual data inputs to OSD's Real Property Assets Database, with any feedback to be addressed at senior Air Force levels. However, DOD officials did not provide any documentation that these requirements had yet been put in place. We await documentation of these requirements and will review them, once received, to assess the extent to which they meet the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military services, defines and documents which data elements within the RPAD submissions are most significant for decision-making. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation to define and document which data elements within its Real Property Assets Database (RPAD) submissions are most significant for decision-making. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they will conduct a review of all data elements in its Real Property Assets Database, including compiling list of all data elements actively being used by data consumers. DOD also plans to divide required data elements into blocks to begin strenuous monitoring for accuracy. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2023. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military services, coordinates on corrective action plans to remediate discrepancies in significant data elements in its real property data system that are identified by OSD's verification and validation tool. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation to coordinate on corrective action plans to remediate discrepancies in significant data elements in its real property data system that are identified by OSD's verification and validation tool. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they plan to establish a senior leader Functional Governance Board to monitor accuracy compliance. DOD also plans to establish quarterly progress reports to be posted on the Data Analytics Integration Support (DAIS) application for constant monitoring by all users. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2022. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military services, develops a strategy that identifies and addresses risks to data quality and information accessibility. At a minimum, this strategy should establish time frames and performance metrics for addressing risks related to (1) unfilled real property positions, (2) a lack of a department-wide approach to improving its data, and (3) implementation of OSD's expanded data platform. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and stated that it plans to collaborate with the military services on separate service strategies that reflect each military service's operating environment. As of February 2020, DOD officials told us they plan to stabilize their Data Analytics Integration Support (DAIS) platform to improve data inventory by ensuring successful network connectivity for all military service users. DOD will update policy guidance to formalize the use of the DAIS platform for inventory submission by the military services. DOD also will develop and formalize in policy benchmarks and metrics to monitor data accuracy. DOD's estimated completion date for these actions is September 2023. We will continue to monitor the completion of DOD's planned actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting , addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding procurement for goods that are predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life as revisions to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) are considered. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. The guidance does not clarify what goods qualify as being predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life. It states contracting officers should check with the requiring activity to make this determination. However, since there is no clear definition of these terms, requiring activities will not have any better insight how to apply this criterion than contracting officers. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how these terms should apply to goods..

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding full life-cycle costs, including for operations and support as revisions to the DFARS are considered. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. This guidance states it is up to the requiring activity to document that the lowest price reflects the full life cycle costs. However, through our work it was unclear to those we interviewed how to determine a full life cycle costs for services. The guidance cites DoD Instruction 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Material Management Policy for further guidance on how to determine life cycle costs for services. This policy does not clarify how life cycle costs should be applied to services. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how this requirement should be implemented by contracting officers as the guidance issued does not do this.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to develop a standardized process for identifying annual funding levels to perform the duties of each Corrosion Executive. It plans to include this process in a new DOD manual on corrosion that it has a goal of creating by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to develop and implement a standardized operating procedure for processing and documenting its review of the Corrosion Executive Reports. It plans to complete and implement this standardized operating procedure by November 1, 2019 . We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corrosion Office plans to develop and maintain a process for documenting the Office's reviews, evaluations, and comments, and to track the weapon system programs' actions on corrosion planning. It plans to include this process in a new DOD manual on corrosion that will include information on considering corrosion during the weapon system program-planning evaluation process, and to develop an internal data system for tracking purposes. Its goal is to create this new manual and internal data system is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to revise DOD guidance to require that the military services establish a process to consistently document the resolution of all identified physical security deficiencies. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with Director of the DHA and the Surgeons General of the military departments, define and analyze the 16 operational readiness and installation-specific medical functions currently excluded from transfer to the DHA to determine whether opportunities exist to reduce or better manage duplicative functions and improve efficiencies in the administration of the MTFs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: As MHS governing bodies conduct their recurring reviews of quality measures selected for MHS's Core Dashboard and Purchased Care Dashboards, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs should direct those bodies to prioritize, as appropriate, the selection of measures that apply to both direct and purchased care at the provider level and that expand the range of quality measure types and medical conditions that are assessed. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD officials described proposed actions to address key elements of our recommendation. Specifically, DOD officials described compiling a comprehensive library of existing inpatient and outpatient quality measures for both direct and purchased care; categorizing those measures by type and medical condition; and identifying 8 measures that are common across direct and purchased care. DOD stated it is considering expanding those 8 common measures to 12 measures. The new measures would cover three cancer screening measures and an additional inpatient satisfaction measure. However, DOD officials noted these 12 measures are not reported at the provider level for purchased care given current contract reporting requirements and would require contract modifications. DOD officials also said they are participating in an interagency partnership to use a common set of quality measures across federal programs, including under the Department of Veterans Affairs. Once those quality measures are determined, DOD may expand the range of quality measures common across direct and purchased care to be consistent with other federal programs. We will keep this recommendation open until DOD provides additional information on actions taken to select and expand quality measures across direct and purchased care.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs should establish, as appropriate, performance standards related to the Purchased Care Dashboard measures that are consistent with the MHS's performance standards for direct care; ensure they are applied to individual purchased care providers; and take steps, such as amending its managed care support contracts, if necessary, to require corrective actions to be taken when providers do not meet those standards. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD officials said that once a common set of quality measures is adopted to the extent possible across direct and purchased care (as discussed in Recommendation 1), DOD plans to establish consistent performance standards applied to individual providers and plans to develop processes to issue corrective actions for individual direct and purchased care providers who do not consistently meet established standards. We will update this recommendation as DOD provides progress updates on the implementation of these plans.

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 CMO, with input from the human resources management team, requires that all DOD human resources providers adopt consistent time-to-hire measures, as one process for assessing performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and noted planned actions. DOD's Human Resources Reform Team has 3 objectives as part of its reform agenda, including civilian hiring improvements. DOD issued its initial plan for business operations reform in April 2019, which includes detailed information and timelines for actions carried out and planned for this reform team. It stated that the team would conduct an annual review of components' time-to-hire plans and work towards establishment of common DOD process and metrics for civilian hiring and establishing baselines and goals for quality metrics through the end of fiscal year 2019. Further, quarterly assessment of survey data using baseline quality metrics is planned to begin in early fiscal year 2020. DOD officials stated that a departmentwide Time-to-Hire Workgroup was established in March 2019 and conducted six workshops to develop a reengineered process map for civilian hiring and an associated implementation plan. Implementation is to occur along with a new IT system for civilian human resources that is expected to be deployed in fiscal year 2021, but we have not received documentation of the specific requirements for implementation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO, through the human resources management reform team, identifies time frames and deliverables for identifying and adopting optimal IT solutions for human resources and fully assessing, identifying, and implementing the most effective and efficient means of human resources service delivery. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and noted planned actions. In its written comments, DOD stated the department is on track to achieve substantial savings through its reform team efforts and CMO emphasis on strong management practices, integrated processes, and best value business investments. DOD issued its initial plan for business operations reform in April 2019, which included detailed information regarding the department's plans for reforming its human resources service delivery. Subsequently, DOD identified 3 human resources management IT system reform projects aimed as identifying and adopting optimal IT systems for its overall civilian human resource management, the defense travel program, and overall training and learning. The reform management group has overseen these reform projects. DOD officials stated that it expects these optimal IT systems to be fully operational later in fiscal year 2020 and 2021. Further, DOD has identified timeframes throughout fiscal year 2023 for identifying and implementing an effective and efficient shared service delivery model for human resources. DOD has made considerable progress in identifying optimal IT systems and service delivery model for its human resources services, and we will continue to monitor the assessment and implementation of these systems and delivery models.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO, through the human resources management reform team, collects information on the overhead costs charged by all DOD human resources service providers to assist in determining the most effective, economical, and efficient model of human resources service delivery within the department. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and noted planned actions. In its written comments, DOD stated the department is on track to achieve substantial savings through its reform team efforts and CMO emphasis on strong management practices, integrated processes, and best value business investments. DOD issued its initial plan for business operations reform in April 2019, which included detailed information regarding the department's plans for reforming its human resources service delivery. As part of this effort, DOD officials stated that the department has collected data and information on services, performance, and pricing to provide basis for common definitions and standards as they determine the most effective, economical, and efficient model of human resources service delivery. Further, efforts are continuing to develop a standardized costing model for human resources service delivery, which officials estimate will be approved for use by early fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the CMO routinely and comprehensively monitors and evaluates ongoing efficiency initiatives within the department, including those related to the reform teams. This monitoring should include establishing baselines from which to measure progress, periodically reviewing progress made, and evaluating results. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In April 2019, DOD submitted to Congress its initial plan for business operations reform. It included an initial plan, schedule, and cost estimate for conducting these reforms. The plan states that a reform initiative framework was implemented to track and report progress of initiatives, and that financial savings will be monitored by a validation process. In December 2019, DOD issued a follow-up report providing additional baseline estimates related to the four areas. DOD officials stated that a reform initiative framework has been implemented to track and report progress of initiatives and that financial savings will be monitored by a validation process. The charter for the Reform Management Group, issued February 2019, directs the governance body to reform and align business functions of the department as well as tracking the progress of those reform efforts. Further, DOD reported on baselines in its January 2020 report to Congress to fulfill the requirements of Section 921 from the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. As of June 2020, DOD provided a corrective action plan that details plans to further evaluate results and financial savings associated with its efficiency initiatives. We will continue to review DOD's efforts throughout the year to ensure this monitoring and evaluation is occurring.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Navy provides additional information in the annual President's budget exhibits associated with CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal to facilitate improved transparency and accountability. Additions should, at a minimum, include the CVN 65 funding estimate across the Future Years Defense Program, activities planned or performed for applicable fiscal years, tracking of total cost and high level changes in cost and schedule from the prior year with explanations for changes, and if applicable, contract type, awardee, award value, and award and completion date estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that the Navy would develop and submit additional cost, schedule, and contract information to supplement existing budget exhibits and continue this reporting through completion of the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act enacted on August 13, 2018. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to include information on each dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier occurring or planned to occur during the period of the future years defense program submitted to Congress with that budget. For each ship, this includes (1) a summary of activities and significant developments in connection with the dismantlement and disposal; (2) a detailed description of cost and schedule performance against the baseline for the dismantlement and disposal, including a description of and explanation for any variance from such baseline; and (3) a description of the funding amounts requested, or expected to be requested, for the dismantlement and disposal for prior, current, and future fiscal years. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a schedule of work and requesting funding for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal plans in 2023 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to obtain an independent cost estimate, performed by DOD's Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation or the Naval Center for Cost Analysis, for both the naval shipyard and full commercial options before choosing a dismantlement and disposal approach for CVN 65. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would obtain independent cost estimates through the Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for both the naval shipyard and full commercial CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal options before a final decision is made on which option the Navy will pursue. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also said the Navy is working directly with the Center for Naval Analyses, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and CAPE to gather and review independent cost estimates for commercial dismantlement and updated naval shipyard cost estimates. The commercial and naval shipyard estimates will be reviewed and assessed by CAPE prior to the Navy making a decision on which option to pursue. CAPE's written report assessing the commercial and naval shipyard estimates is expected to combine with the ongoing EIS to directly inform the Navy's decision for CVN 65. We will continue to monitor the status of independent cost estimate activities for CVN 65 until the estimates have been completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to complete a risk management plan prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare a risk management plan for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of a contract or the provision of funds. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that if the Navy selects the commercial dismantlement option for CVN 65, the Navy anticipates identifying potential risks and mitigations in February 2021 for CVN 65 dismantling to support independent cost estimate development, with risk management plan approval to follow in July 2022. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's efforts to complete a risk management plan as the department works toward a decision for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to approve a cost and schedule baseline prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare and approve a cost and schedule baseline for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of any contract or the provision of funds for the effort. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department on August 13, 2018, as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that provides a cost and schedule baseline for the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear powered aircraft carriers approved by Navy leadership. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a cost and schedule baseline for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal in 2022 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February and May 2019, DSCA informed us that it had taken some steps to implement this recommendation, including establishing an automatic interface with certain DOD components' accounting systems to provide DSCA with daily information and data on those components' actual spending of FMS administrative funds. DSCA noted that it is working toward establishing automatic interfaces for the other components that receive these funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that implementation is ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation .

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA noted that it is undertaking an initiative to incorporate reconciliation capabilities into its oversight of components' use of FMS administrative funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation .

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

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, DSCA informed us that it had conducted two business process reviews for military departments in 2019. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.

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

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, DSCA informed us that it planned to conduct one review for another DOD component (e.g., other than a military department) in fall 2019. In January 2019, it collaborated with other DOD components that receive FMS administrative funds to develop risk-based criteria for selecting components for periodic business process reviews . DSCA also provided updated policies and procedures for these reviews, which state that DSCA will conduct at least one review for another DOD component annually. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should create and maintain a complete list of military department organizations or offices that receive administrative funds and are subject to DSCA's business process reviews. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA provided supporting documentation to show that, as part of its annual budget review cycle, it had required DOD components to provide a list of sub-components/organizations that receive FMS administrative funds. In October 2019, DSCA provided a list of sub-components/organizations that DSCA obtained as part of the 2019 annual budget cycle. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should update DSCA's policy for selecting military department organizations for reviews of their business processes for administrative funds, to better ensure that it reflects a risk-based approach. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA provided updated standard operating procedures for selecting military department organizations for reviews of their business processes for administrative funds. As of August 2020, we are reviewing the documentation provided and following up with DSCA to determine the extent to which the new procedures reflect a risk-based approach.

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should clarify guidance to ensure that the DSCA officials conducting reviews of business processes for administrative funds periodically track action items until they are completed. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it had updated its policies and procedures to reflect that it will track action items from business process reviews every 30 days, until the action items area completed. DSCA needs to providing supporting documentation for its efforts to track action items. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation .

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should develop a process for conducting periodic (e.g., quarterly or annual), targeted reviews of DOD components' use of administrative funds, including transactions testing, to verify that actual costs incurred are allowable and approved. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it was in the process of conducting "mock" audits of DOD components' use of FMS administrative funds, and that it was undergoing efforts to ensure that a process is in place for the financial review of components' actual spending of these funds. DSCA noted that these efforts were ongoing in October 2019. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA takes steps to work with DFAS and other DOD components, as appropriate, to improve the reliability of the data that DSCA obtains on all DOD components' use of CAS funds, including actual execution data, at an appropriate level of detail, such as by object class. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February and May 2019, DSCA informed us that it had taken some steps to implement this recommendation, including establishing an automatic interface with certain DOD components' accounting systems to provide DSCA with daily information and data on those components' actual spending of FMS CAS funds. DSCA noted that it is working toward establishing automatic interfaces for the other components that receive these funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that implementation is ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's ongoing actions to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of DSCA works with DFAS to conduct regular reconciliations of the data that DSCA collects on DOD components' use of CAS funds, to help ensure that the data are reliable. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2019, DSCA noted that it is undertaking an initiative to incorporate reconciliation capabilities into its oversight of components' use of FMS CAS funds. In October 2019, DSCA informed us that efforts to implement this recommendation are ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DOD's actions to implement this recommendation

Recommendation: The Director of DSCA should develop a process for conducting periodic (e.g., quarterly or annual), targeted reviews of DOD components' use of CAS funds, including transactions testing, to verify that actual costs incurred are allowable and approved. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Defense: Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, DSCA noted that it was in the process of conducting "mock" audits of DOD components' use of FMS CAS funds, and that it was undergoing efforts to ensure that a process is in place for the financial review of components' actual spending of these funds. As of October 2019, DSCA noted that these efforts were ongoing. As of August 2020, we continue to monitor DSCA's ongoing efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment clarifies the categories of threats within JIDO's counter-improvised threat mission. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment clarifies JIDO's authorities for countering improvised threats, including the degree to which JIDO is to focus (lead, advocate, and coordinate) departmental efforts in key areas such as research and rapid fielding. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the DTRA Director establishes a process to routinely obtain permission to release applicable information from organizations connected to JIDO research projects so that JIDO can send the information to Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the DTRA Director establishes a process to submit information on JIDO's research projects to DTIC. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2019, DOD indicated that is has begun taking action to implement it. We will update the status of this recommendation once we confirm the actions DOD has taken.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should: assess why reverse auctions that are conducted using existing contract vehicles have only one bidder at higher rates than reverse auctions conducted on the open market; determine what factors indicate that conducting reverse auctions is appropriate when using existing contract vehicles; and provide this information to contracting officials so that they can consider it when developing their acquisition strategies.(Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials told us that they had reviewed data on reverse auctions to determine a root cause of single bidders, and describing the factors that indicate that conducting a reverse auction are appropriate. However, they had not yet provided this information to contracting officials as of July 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should: document and provide information to contracting officials that describes available reverse auction providers and platforms, and any associated fee structures; and provide guidance, as appropriate, to contracting officials to ensure that they compare the options that are available to them when considering whether to use reverse auctions. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated that the department expected to complete actions to address it by the end of calendar year 2018. In August 2019, Navy officials stated that memorandum of understanding with reverse auction providers, including fee information, are distributed to contracting officials. However, as of August 2020, they had not provided us with evidence that they had distributed a memorandum related to the primary reverse auction provider currently used by the Navy.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should assess CFIUS resource requirements within the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (MIBP) and DOD component reviewers in light of increasing workload, and prioritize personnel and funding resources accordingly to review, mitigate, and monitor transactions that are of concern to the department. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and in August 2020, stated it had augmented the personnel in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy (formally the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy) to include 15 federal civilians and 60 contractors to support the current CFIUS caseload. Industrial Policy officials stated that DOD CFIUS component reviewers have also augmented their personnel resources, and that approximately 15 of their contractor employees will support DOD CFIUS stakeholders. However, documentation of the efforts to prioritize personnel and funding resources within DOD CFIUS component reviewers was not available at the time of our follow-up.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for MIBP and Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, should incorporate the results of its efforts to identify, assess, and prioritize national security concerns related to foreign investment in emerging technologies and in proximity to certain critical military locations, into DOD Instruction 2000.25 and communicate the results to DOD component reviewers. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated in July 2019 that it believes the passage of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) will help the department to address concerns related to foreign investment in emerging technologies and in proximity to critical military locations. In August 2020, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy stated that some of the regulations implementing FIRRMA are currently being written, and that the department is also still in the process of updating DOD Instruction 2000.25, which they anticipate completing in April 2021.

Recommendation: Following the completion of its emerging technology study, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for MIBP should assess what additional authorities may be necessary to address risks related to foreign investment in critical and emerging technologies, and seek legislative action to address risks posed by these investments as appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated in July 2019 that it believes the passage of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) should provide the department with the necessary authorities to address concerns related to foreign investment in emerging technologies. However, in August 2020, officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy stated that the regulation implementing FIRRMA requrements related to emerging technology is still in the process of being written by the Department of Commerce, and that until these regulations are issued the Department of Defense cannot assess their ability to address concerns related to foreign investment in critical and emerging technologies.

Recommendation: The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for MIBP should update DOD Instruction 2000.25, to include additional guidance and clarification regarding DOD component responsibilities during the CFIUS process and DOD processes for identifying non-notified transactions. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated in July 2019 that it was working with other CFIUS member agencies to make the formal non-notified process DOD established in 2016 a more robust, interagency process. In August 2020, DOD stated it is still in the process of revising DOD Instruction 2000.25 to include additional information on identifying non-notified transactions, but does not anticipate that the revisions will be completed until April 2021.

Recommendation: The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for MIBP should update and implement requirements identified in DOD Instruction 2000.25 regarding management and oversight of mitigation agreements, such as taking into account the resources needed to effectively monitor agreements, improving communication methods between MIBP and the DOD components, and clarifying component responsibilities in developing and monitoring mitigation agreements. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and stated in July 2019 that it is in the process of revising DOD Instruction 2000.25 regarding the management and oversight of mitigation agreements, and have more than doubled their resources for mitigation monitoring. As of August 2020, officials from the Office of Industrial Policy stated that that revisions to DOD Instruction 2000.25 will not be completed until April 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Commandant of the Marine Corps develops and implements mechanisms to consistently capture information on pilots' post-service employment, including the number of those going to the commercial airlines, such as through revising existing exit surveys, or working in coordination with the National Pilot Sourcing Forum specifically to monitor commercial airline hiring to supplement the information DOD collects. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Secretary of the Air Force analyzes staffing levels by officer grade for each pilot community as part of its annual business case for aviation retention bonus payments to help ensure that aviation retention bonuses are targeted to the appropriate pilot communities. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD officials stated that the Air Force plans to make changes to its upcoming business case analysis to break out control grade from field grade officers to better delineate the staffing challenges it faces as well as the targeted effect of aviation bonus offerings. Officials stated that this change is part of an ongoing study with RAND that should be completed in early summer 2020.

Recommendation: As MIBP moves forward with its plans to improve data collection and analysis, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense, Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy should determine a solution to make better use of existing lower-tier supplier information from program offices. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, noting that it plans to takes steps to identify and incorporate available supplier data from across the department into its defense industrial base data system, but noted that they only planned to rely on one data system, DIBNow, instead of continuing to develop its second data system, the Defense Planning Guidance Input and Retrieval System. The Industrial Policy Office, formerly Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, has taken some steps to improve sharing of industrial base analysis information across the Department, such as establishing a web repository of industrial base assessment information and subject matter expert contacts. However, these sharing tools continue to rely primarily on summary narratives and Industrial Policy has not incorporated program office lower-tier supplier data into this web repository or DIBnow. Industrial Policy has incorporated sub-tier supplier information into DIBnow from commercial industry sources, but these sources do not have the same level of insight into the supply chain as program offices. An Industrial Policy official said there are no plans to incorporate supply chain information from program offices because this information is proprietary and therefore cannot be incorporated into DIBnow, which is built and maintained by a contractor. DOD General Counsel has determined that contractors cannot have access to this proprietary information for the purposes of DIBnow. We continue to believe that program offices have the most complete insight into sub-tier suppliers, which is essential for DOD to achieve its goal of proactive industrial base risk analysis. Industrial Policy should continue to pursue risk reductions solutions, such as non-disclosure agreements and/or data masking, to make better use of existing lower-tier supplier information from program offices.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 program office to resolve all critical deficiencies before making a full-rate production decision. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that critical deficiencies would be resolved before full-rate production, due in December 2019. In May 2020, we reported that DOD delayed its full-rate production decision from December 2019 to between September 2020 and March 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 program office to identify what steps are needed to ensure the F-35 meets reliability and maintainability requirements before each variant reaches maturity and update the Reliability and Maintainability Improvement Program with these steps. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to a DOD official, as of July 2020, the F-35 program office is in the process of revising its plan for improving the F-35's reliability and maintainability.

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.