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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: To help NNSA put forth more credible modernization plans, the NNSA Administrator should include an assessment of the affordability of NNSA's portfolio of modernization programs in future versions of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan--for example, by presenting options NNSA could consider to bring its estimates of modernization funding needs into alignment with potential future budgets, such as potentially deferring the start of or canceling specific modernization programs.

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

Comments: NNSA included a new section in the Fiscal Year 2020 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) of its analysis of the affordability of its weapons modernization plans. However, this section still does not include details about, or an assessment of, the options NNSA might have to take in the future--such as adjusting the schedules or scopes of certain programs or projects--to address an apparent misalignment between the future budget estimates of its portfolio of nuclear modernization programs and the projections of potential future budgets. Therefore, we will continue to review future SSMPs to assess whether NNSA has included additional information or an assessment consistent with this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOE's control activities continue to be relevant and effective for managing supply chain risk, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, as the Administrator of the NNSA, to work with the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and other DOE organizations, as appropriate, to assess the circumstances that might warrant using the enhanced procurement authority, and (1) if this assessment identifies circumstances that might warrant using the authority, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security to work with other DOE organizations, as appropriate, to establish processes for using it and examine whether adequate resources are in place to support those processes, and (2) communicate the results of this assessment to the relevant congressional committees for their use in determining whether to extend the authority past its current termination date.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an October 7, 2016, letter the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said he agreed with GAO's recommendation to assess situations that might warrant the use of the enhanced procurement authority and, should specific circumstances be identified for use of the authority, NNSA would develop a process for its use. The assessment would include an examination of resources to support use of the authority. NNSA would work with other Department of Energy organizations as appropriate in conducting the assessment. NNSA officials said they submitted the assessment to the congressional committees in March 2020. We requested a copy of the assessment and will update the status of this recommendation after we receive and review it.

Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to align DOD's data on department-wide military and civilian positions that have headquarters-related DOD function codes with the revised definition of major DOD headquarters activities in order to provide the department with reliable data to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining or further analysis.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has made progress on this recommendation by (1) aligning guidance on the Inherently Governmental and Commercial Activities (IGCA) Inventory to redefined Management Headquarters Activities, (2) requiring service components to revalidate DOD function codes assigned to billets when providing data to support the IGCA inventory, and, (3) providing documentation to show it had aligned total obligation authority and manpower information in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documentation to demonstrate that guidance had been implemented. In addition, DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. When the department documents alignment of major headquarters activities with civilian and military manpower information and improves functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and identify opportunities for streamlining.

Recommendation: To further DOD's efforts to identify opportunities for more efficient use of headquarters-related resources, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the defense agencies and DOD field activities, to, once this definition is published in DOD guidance, collect reliable information on the costs associated with functions within headquarters organizations--through revisions to the Inherently Governmental / Commercial Activities Inventory or another method--in order to provide the department with detailed information for use in estimating resources associated with specific headquarters functions, and in making decisions, monitoring performance, and allocating resources.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD had made progress on this recommendation by documenting it had aligned manpower and total obligation authority in the Future Years Defense Program to major headquarters activities. DOD stated in August 2020 that it has established a functional coding working group and that, by June 2022, it will update policy guidance to improve functional coding and ensure alignment with data systems. As of August 2020, the department had not, however, finalized the definition of major headquarters activities in its guidance. When the department formalizes the definition in guidance and improves its functional coding, it will be better positioned to accurately assess headquarters functions and estimate related resources.

Recommendation: To ensure the Army retains accountability of SRC I ammunition in an in-transit status, consistent with DOD policy, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to evaluate and identify actions to enable the Army to retain accountability for in-transit items until acknowledgment of receipt.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, the Army is undergoing a financial audit of all munitions processes that affect the financial voucher, including the Material-In-Transit between locations, both wholesale and retail. The Army gained a consensus that until a unified record for both wholesale and retail is adopted, the shipping and receipt process will remain the same as that currently in use. An effort is underway to determine the best Army Enterprise Ammunition Supply Chain via an Other Transaction Agreement solution intended to provide a seamless supply chain from wholesale to the end user. The estimated completion date is September 2023.

Recommendation: To provide greater assurance that the Interagency Rotation Program for national security personnel will be implemented as provided in section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in collaboration with the Committee on National Security Personnel, should establish a clear leadership and oversight structure to guide future implementation efforts.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: OPM generally concurred with the recommendations, but raised issues primarily about the roles and responsibilities that GAO addresses in the report. As of November 2019, OPM has not taken any action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide greater assurance that the Interagency Rotation Program for national security personnel will be implemented as provided in section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in collaboration with the Committee on National Security Personnel, should work with the departments and agencies to identify and take action on necessary next steps to proceed with the program's implementation, including developing and issuing required guidance for implementation within identified timeframes.

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: OPM generally concurred with the recommendations, but raised issues primarily about the roles and responsibilities that GAO addresses in the report. As of November 2019, OPM has not taken any action on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help inform decision makers on the SAMP's progress as well as the decision regarding the extension of the SAMP's term, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP to define timelines and measures to assess its progress in completing its major tasks.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that the department will submit its Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act report on military programs and controls regarding professionalism to Congress on September 1, 2015, thereby satisfying the requirements of this recommendation. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase assurance that commanders are conducting command climate assessments in accordance with statutory requirements and departmental guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to modify existing guidance or develop new guidance to comply with requirements set forth in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and internal DOD guidance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that existing Army practice is consistent with the intent of departmental guidance for command climate survey utilization. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to further inquiries regarding any actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better inform the department's approach to senior officers' professional development, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments for all general and flag officers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that it concurs with the recommendation to assess the need for and feasibility of implementing 360-degree assessments, or 360-degree-like feedback assessments, where they are not already being performed, but that it believes that it should only do so for general and flag officers at the three star ranks and below. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. At that time, DOD also stated that it believes in a holistic approach to developing and assessing professionalism, noting, as an example, the Joint Staff's use of staff assistance visits and Senior Leader "roundtables" to complement the use of 360-degree assessments. In April 2018, DOD stated that each military department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had implemented a 360-degree assessment requirement for all general and flag officers. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries regarding documentation in support of these actions. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to assess its progress in addressing ethics and professionalism issues, the Secretary of Defense should direct the SAMP, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, or SAMP's successor organization(s), to identify information sources and develop intermediate goals and performance metrics. At minimum, these performance metrics should be clear, quantifiable, and objective, and they should include a baseline assessment of current performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred, with comment, with this recommendation, noting that the office of the Senior Advisor for Military Professionalism is a temporary office established by Secretary Hagel for a two year term ending no later than March of 2016. DOD confirmed its position with regard to this recommendation on October 19, 2015. In April 2018, DOD identified activities it had undertaken in the spirit and intent of the recommendation. As of September 16, 2020, DOD has not responded to inquiries for documentation in support of these actions and the related development of intermediate goals and performance metrics. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that the increasing risks of GPS disruptions to the nation's critical infrastructure are effectively managed, the Secretary of Homeland Security should increase the reliability and usefulness of the GPS risk assessment by developing a plan and time frame to collect relevant threat, vulnerability, and consequence data for the various critical infrastructure sectors, and periodically review the readiness of data to conduct a more data-driven risk assessment while ensuring that DHS's assessment approach is more consistent with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: DHS officials had previously indicated that DHS's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) and Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis (OCIA) have discussed an update of the GPS risk assessment. Additionally, information from DHS shows that DHS has continued other efforts to collect potentially relevant threat, vulnerability, and consequence data for various GPS equipment in use. For example, according to DHS officials, DHS has conducted visits to major maritime, finance, wireless communications, and electricity firms to gauge their understanding of GPS vulnerabilities and of technology- and strategy-based efforts to improve GPS resilience, and DHS documentation shows that DHS has held events to test GPS receivers as part of assessing vulnerabilities. In August 2020, DHS officials provided GAO with additional information regarding their progress on implementing the recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation after we review the additional information from DHS.

Recommendation: To allow Congress to better oversee management of the nuclear security enterprise and to improve NNSA's management information with respect to the base capabilities necessary to ensure nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and reliable, the Administrator of NNSA should, once the Stockpile Services work breakdown structure reflects a product or capability basis, use this work breakdown structure to develop product/capability cost estimates that adequately justify the congressional budget request for Stockpile Services.

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

Comments: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA restructured its budget starting with its fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials. GAO, through ongoing work, is continuing to monitor NNSA's development of cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and to improve the transparency and usefulness of cost analyses prepared for future NNSA nuclear facilities modernization projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that life cycle cost analyses include a thorough and balanced evaluation of short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives. Such analyses should consider the full useful life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirement for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time that might produce results that favor one option over another.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and because of the importance of mitigating the risks of outsourcing nuclear weapons components and other information that if exported, might allow potential adversaries to develop or advance their nuclear capabilities, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to take immediate action to assess the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of KCP's current export control and nonproliferation practices and, if appropriate, initiate corrective actions to strengthen that oversight.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.