Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. GAO’s priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
Have a Question about a Recommendation?
- For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
- For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
Results:
Subject Term: "Operational requirements"
GAO-20-303, Apr 22, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9627
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.
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.
GAO-20-316, Mar 6, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-9627
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.
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.
GAO-18-550, Aug 8, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. Customs and Border Protection provided an estimated completion date for their workforce assessment of September 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency plans to establish a policy for requirements development by September 30, 2020, about one year after it completes changes to its governance processes.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken action to implement it as of August 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken action to implement it as of August 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken action to implement it as of August 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken action to implement it as of August 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: The National Protection and Programs Directorate changed its name to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in January 2018. DHS concurred with this recommendation. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency estimates that it will have a final policy by September 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the National Protection and Programs Directorate changed its name to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency estimates that it will establish an independent requirements organization by September 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. In January 2018, the National Protection and Programs Directorate changed its name to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency estimates it will complete an assessment to account for an independent requirements organization's workforce needs by September 30, 2020.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimates that it will establish an independent requirements development organization by September 30, 2020.
GAO-17-29, Nov 3, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on this report, DOD did not concur with our recommendation. DOD agreed that many components in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide are broadly applicable in the decision process leading up to a military construction budget request. However, DOD further stated that once military construction funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress, the department transitions to a project management mode, and it would be a waste of resources to continue to generate cost estimates once they have transitioned to managing project execution using actual cost data. However, as we note in the report, DOD guidance for estimating construction costs, DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria 3-740-05, states that in the MILCON program, construction cost estimates are prepared throughout the planning, design, and construction phases of a construction project to account for the refinement of the project?s design and requirements. The final estimate should document the department?s assessment of the program's most probable cost and ensure that enough funds are available to execute it. As of October 2016, the military construction funds had not been authorized by Congress for the third phase of the JIAC construction project. According to DOD officials, construction is not scheduled to begin until fall of 2017, and the contract has not yet been awarded. Further, the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide states that regardless of whether changes to the program result from a major contract modification or an overtarget budget, the cost estimate should be regularly updated to reflect all changes. This is also a requirement outlined in OMB's Capital Programming Guide. The purpose of updating the cost estimate is to check its accuracy, defend the estimate over time, and archive cost and technical data for use in future estimates. After the internal agency and congressional budgets are prepared and submitted, it is imperative that cost estimators continue to monitor the program to determine whether the preliminary information and assumptions remain relevant and accurate. Keeping the estimate updated gives decision makers accurate information for assessing alternative decisions. Cost estimates must also be updated whenever requirements change, and the results should be reconciled and recorded against the old estimate baseline. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOD's implementation of our recommendation to update future JIAC cost estimates using the best practices identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide would assist in ensuring that decision makers have complete and reliable information about costs associated with the JIAC consolidation and as the third phase of the JIAC project is authorized. Implementing our recommendation would also ensure that DOD develops a reliable historical record for the cost of the JIAC that can be used to estimate other similar projects in the future. As of June 2017, the agency had not taken any action to implement this recommendation. As of July 2018, a senior DOD official said that DOD is developing a new analysis of alternatives (AOA) for JIAC consolidation and will use, as appropriate, our AOA best practices. Those best practices include several focused on cost estimation. We have requested information on the extent to which the AOA team will use best practices for cost estimating to update the JIAC consolidation cost estimate. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information. As of September 2019, a senior DOD official said that DOD's prior non-concur with our recommendation is still valid for the reasons mentioned above.
GAO-16-406, Sep 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.
GAO-16-453, Jun 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7141
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not developed measures to systematically assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard develop measures, as appropriate, for gauging how the agency's actions have helped to mitigate the Arctic capability gaps. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. According to Coast Guard officials, they expect the implementation plan to include actionable items that can be measured and the framework tool to include outcome and success measures. In July 2020, officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is finalized and implemented and that throughout fiscal year 2021 they will test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to finalize the development of its measures to gauge how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, which we will continue to monitor.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2016, we reviewed and reported on the U.S. Coast Guard's efforts in the Arctic. We found that the Coast Guard had taken actions to implement its Arctic strategy and conduct Arctic operations, which may help the Coast Guard to better understand and mitigate identified Arctic capability gaps. Further, we found that the Coast Guard was tracking, or had plans to track, its various activities in the Arctic, but that it had not systematically assessed how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps. We recommended that the Coast Guard design and implement a process to systematically assess the extent to which actions taken agency-wide have helped mitigate the Arctic capability gaps for which it has responsibility, so that it will better understand the status of these gaps and be better positioned to effectively plan its Arctic operations. Since that time, the Coast Guard updated its Arctic strategy in April 2019. In February 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they are revising the implementation plan for its Arctic Strategy and are working on a framework tool to measure the impacts of its actions in the Arctic. Officials estimated that the implementation plan would be finalized by the end of fiscal year 2020. Further, the Coast Guard issued a contract in August 2019 to help develop the framework tool by the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials stated that the tool may require revisions before it is implemented and utilized for assessment of its progress. In July 2020, Coast Guard officials stated that they plan to test, evaluate, and adjust the framework tool, as appropriate, throughout fiscal year 2021. To fully address this recommendation, the Coast Guard will need to assess how its actions have helped to mitigate Arctic capability gaps, and provide documentation that identifies the progress it has made in helping to mitigate Arctic capability gaps and its plans to systematically assess progress, which we will continue to monitor.