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: "Operations and maintenance"
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-20-307, Feb 5, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, USIBWC stated that two teams have been established with members, one in the Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora region and one in the San Diego and Tijuana region. IBWC continues to take actions to formalize the binational rapid response teams. We will review the final documents for each team when they are completed and available.
Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2020, the U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC stated that it had conducted long-term capital planning for the facilities for which it is responsible. They noted the 5-year plan that USIBWC had developed for the South Bay plant and the 10-year plan that it had developed for the Nogales plant. We noted these plans in our original report and stated that they needed to be broadened to identify needs in the Santa Cruz River Basin and Tijuana River Valley watersheds. The agency only partially concurred with our recommendation in the report and noted that to the extent our report envisions USIBWC undertaking long-term capital planning for (1) nonfederal infrastructure; (2) infrastructure that does not yet exist; and/or (3) infrastructure that the USIBWC is not yet authorized to construct or maintain, it does not concur. The agency is a key player in managing water quality on the border and has the infrastructure and organization that will be part of the solution. Without the information that USIBWC would generate by comprehensively assessing its long-term needs, such as through long-term capital planning efforts, Congress cannot authorize specific work that needs to be done. We recommended that the agency conduct long-term planning, including for infrastructure that does not exist and for infrastructure that is not yet authorized specifically to address this problem. We continue to believe that USIBWC should recognize its role along the border and start planning for it, including by undertaking long-term capital planning for existing and potential future infrastructure and identifying alternatives to address the long-standing water quality problems.
GAO-20-228, Dec 20, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: As of April 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it had published on its website draft guidance in response to the Federal Personal Property Management Act of 2018. In addition, GSA identified several actions it planned to take in the coming months, such as publishing a comprehensive plan and timelines to address GAO's recommendation, publishing a request for information in the Federal Register to seek comments and suggestions, and engaging additional subject matter experts and related associations and standards group to improve upon the draft guidance. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.
GAO-20-130, Dec 10, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation and has developed an action plan to implement it. In January 2020, GSA officials told us that GSA will change the method for calculating the average cost per square foot performance measure by now using the actual rent agencies paid to GSA in the calculation. GSA officials also stated that GSA will post this information annually to performance.gov. We will continue to monitor GSA's implementation of these efforts.
GAO-19-20, Nov 7, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Corps has developed a definition for "deferred maintenance" for civil works and plans to request funding to establish a team to review maintenance data. The Corps anticipates implementing this recommendation by the end of 2020.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers
Status: Open
Comments: As of December 2019, the Corps is working to review existing authorities, funding, and contracting mechanisms to identify potential courses of action to address GAO's recommendation. The Corps anticipates implementing this recommendation in 2021.
GAO-19-116, Oct 15, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: In commenting on the report, DOD concurred with the recommendation and stated DOD advisors will continue to work with their Afghan counterparts to build their capacity to reliably report information on equipment status. As of September 2020, DOD had not provided an update on actions taken in response to this recommendation.
GAO-18-298, Jun 28, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided its fiscal year 2018 Operational Analysis Results report, dated June 24, 2019. The report demonstrated that IRS, in response to our recommendation, had ensured that the operational analysis for IMF fully addressed greater utilization of technology or consolidation of investments to better meet organizational goals. However, the operational analysis did not reflect IRS's progress to date in modernizing IMF and the associated challenges. As we reported, this omission is concerning given the risk exposure from the agency's continued use of the legacy assembly language code. In order to close the recommendation, IRS needs to update the operational analysis to reflect its progress modernizing IMF.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided its fiscal year (FY) 2018 Operational Analysis Results report, dated June 24, 2019. While the report included a summary of the FY 2018 operational analysis for TSS, it did not identify the metrics used to determine whether TSS supported customer processes or delivered the goods and services that it is intended to deliver. To close this recommendation, IRS will need to provide the detailed operational analysis for TSS incorporating these metrics. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided the full TSS operational analysis to GAO. Upon receiving the document, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided GAO its fiscal year (FY) 2018 Operational Analysis Results report. While the report included a summary of the FY 2018 operational analysis for the Telecommunications Systems and Support (TSS) investment , including planned and actual cost figures for FY2018, the report did not indicate whether the planned cost figure for FY2018 accounted for reimbursable costs and user fees, as we reported. To address this recommendation, IRS will need to provide a full operational analysis for TSS, as well as documentation showing whether reimbursable costs and user fees are included in the planned cost figure. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided a full TSS operational analysis to GAO. Upon receiving the document, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2019, IRS provided its fiscal year (FY) 2018 Operational Analysis Results report, dated June 24, 2019. While the report included a summary of the FY 2018 operational analysis for End User Systems and Services (EUSS) investment, including planned and actual cost figures for FY2018, it did not specify whether the planned cost figure accounted for multi-year funding and user fees, as we reported. To address this recommendation, IRS will need to provide a full operational analysis for EUSS, as well as documentation showing whether multi-year funding and user fees are included in the planned cost figure. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided the full EUSS operational analysis to GAO. Upon receiving it, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates on the status of the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by November 2019. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether the agency has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframe and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019. While the plan addressed most of the activities associated with the preparing for risk management key practice, it did not identify risk constraints, risk assumptions, or risk tolerance for the MSSS investment. Upon receiving further information, we will review it to determine if IRS has fully addressed this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by October 2019. In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframe and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019, along with several other documents associated with the agency's IT risk management process. However, the documents do not demonstrate that IRS has implemented the activities associated with the Analyze Risk key practice. Specifically, while the plan describes a risk analysis process in which risks are classified as high, medium, or low risk, neither the plan nor any of the other documents describes criteria for evaluating and quantifying risk likelihood and severity (impact) levels. Additionally, the Risk Management Plan does not indicate whether analysis of MSSS risks includes both inherent and residual risks. Upon receiving additional information indicating that IRS has addressed these activities, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by October 2019. In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframe and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019, along with several other documents associated with the agency's IT risk management process. However, the documents do not demonstrate that IRS has established threshold values for MSSS risk categories or alternative courses of action for critical risks. Upon receiving additional information indicating that it has addressed these activities. we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it would implement the recommendation by October 2019. In November 2019, IRS provided its IT Enterprise Operations Mainframes and Servers Services and Support (MSSS) Risk Management Plan, dated October 7, 2019, along with several other documents associated with the agency's IT risk management process. However, the documents do not demonstrate that IRS has fully implemented all of the activities associated with the monitoring, reporting, and controlling key practice. Specifically, our review of the documents shows that IRS has not established threshold values for MSSS risk categories, and as a result is unable to compare the status of risks to acceptability thresholds to determine the need for implementing a risk mitigation plan. In addition, although the MSSS Risk Management Plan was updated in October 2019, its previous revision occurred in October 2017, indicating that IRS has not yet reviewed all aspects of the risk management program at least once a year. Upon receiving additional information that IRS has addressed these activities, we will review it to determine if IRS has implemented the recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2018, IRS told GAO it had initiated efforts to address workforce planning agency-wide. The agency stated that the Human Capital Office in coordination with the Information Technology organization prioritizes critical skills gaps to develop gap mitigation strategies, which are implemented through IT annual training plans and succession planning efforts. IRS also stated that the mitigation plans will be monitored in the current Project and Portfolio Management System and that the Human Capital and Information Technology organizations will monitor resource capacity, skills, assigned work effort, and staff availability. In addition, IRS stated that it would utilize special hiring authorities as a competency and staffing mitigation strategy. The agency noted that the special authorities are subject to the availability of resources and agency approval. Further, IRS stated that, due to the diversion of IT resources to the Tax Cuts and Jobs implementation, development of a plan for scaling and expansion of workforce planning efforts will commence after the opening of Filing Season 2020. IRS stated that, due to those constraints, it could not provide a date for fully implementing the recommendation. As of December 2019, IRS has not provided any updates indicating whether it has implemented the recommendation. When we confirm what actions IRS has taken, we will provide updated information.
GAO-18-420, May 22, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: GSA agreed with the recommendation. GSA officials are in the process of developing a tool to estimate the full operations and maintenance costs of design choices during the planning and design, including how those choices will impact areas discussed in our report, e.g., cleaning, energy, and landscaping costs. This tool is scheduled for completion in 2020. Based on a demonstration from GSA, we believe that upon implementation this tool will address our recommendation by allowing officials to better understand the impact of design choices as they are being made. We will follow up with GSA in later in the year to validate that the tool is operational.
Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Comments: GSA concurred with this recommendation. GSA officials are the process of developing a tool that will include the ability to consider building functionality, e.g., purpose or function of the building and spaces, when estimating operations and maintenance costs during planning and design. This tool is scheduled for completion in July 2020. Based on a demonstration from GSA, we believe that upon implementation this tool will address our recommendation by allowing officials to better understand the impact of functional design choices as they are being made. We will follow up with GSA later in the year to validate that the tool is operational.
GAO-18-339SP, May 17, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-4841
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: In providing comments on this report, DHS concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to update its policy to require more formal reporting requirements and execution criteria for post-implementation reviews. PARM also plans to initiate a study focused on assessing lessons learned and developing a tool to share them across components to improve performance of the acquisition portfolio. In February 2020, PARM approved guidance intended to standardize analysis elements for post-implementation reviews. As of July 2020, PARM was still in the process of developing a tool to share results across components, but in the interim, results from some post-implementation reviews have been shared during meetings with Component Acquisition Executives. GAO will review post-implementation reviews conducted under the new guidance and will monitor DHS's implementation of the tool to ensure the department's actions meet the intent of this recommendation.
GAO-18-221, Apr 3, 2018
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions to update Volume 6A, Chapter 7 of the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) with guidance on rates for disbursement to ensure all components are utilizing the most cost-effective rates while balancing mission requirements and time required to process transactions. DOD estimates that the FMR revision will be completed by October 31, 2020. Until the revision to the FMR is completed, DOD risks paying more to disburse funds for overseas expenditures than would otherwise be required.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. However, as of August 2019, DOD had not planned any actions intended to implement this recommendation. According to DOD, projecting foreign currency gains or losses to determine the necessary size of the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense (FCFD) account balance would only be possible if foreign currency rates do not fluctuate. DOD states that if projected gains or losses are used to determine the necessary size of the FCFD account when foreign currency rates are volatile, it would expose the department to additional risk. In our report, we acknowledged the inherent challenge in projecting foreign currency gains or losses. However, we also noted that DOD already projects foreign currency gains or losses as the basis for transfers out of the FCFD account but does not use the same analysis to inform its transfers into the account. Further, DOD has the flexibility to make multiple transfers of funds to the FCFD account in a fiscal year in response to any unforeseen foreign currency fluctuations. Without an analysis of projected losses to determine the necessary size of the account balance, DOD may be maintaining the account at a higher balance than is necessary and losing opportunities to more efficiently use funds.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions to revise Volume 6A, Chapter 7 of the Financial Management Regulation (FMR) to ensure reporting is complete and accurate and assign responsibilities to DOD components for data correction. DOD estimates that the revision to the FMR will be completed by October 31, 2020. Without updated guidance to ensure that the data that tracks foreign currency gains and losses are complete, DOD and Congress will continue to lack quality information with which to make decisions and exercise stewardship over resources for managing foreign currency fluctuations.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2019, DOD had planned actions intended to address the recommendation. Specifically, the Secretary of the Army intended to develop a Systems Change Request for how disbursements are recorded in the General Fund Enterprise Business System to be consistent with DOD's Financial Management Regulation. DOD estimates that the system changes will be complete by the second quarter of FY 2020. Until DOD completes its planned actions to address this recommendation, the Army and DOD will continue to lack accurate information for tracking and helping to manage foreign currency gains and losses.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, based on information provided by the Corps, the agency has reviewed approximately half of the data and hopes to review the rest of the data by the end of June 2021.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, the Corps is studying how data are captured in the OMBIL system to ensure the agency has a sustainable approach that can be used to collect and analyze data into the future. The Corps hopes to complete its actions on this recommendation by the end of December 2021.
Phone: (202) 512-5431
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non-concurred with this recommendation. As of July 2020, DOD had not taken any action to implement the recommendation. DOD stated that it agreed that including additional fuel consumption detail could be useful information, but that it would be difficult and labor intensive to implement a system to separate base from OCO data for several reasons, including its use of legacy financial management systems that cannot easily distinguish between base and OCO execution data.
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-16-537, Aug 16, 2016
Phone: (213) 830-1011
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD non-concurred with our recommendation. DOD stated in its initial response to our recommendation that there is no legal or administrative subdivision of the O&M appropriation for base and OCO; however, we continue to believe that the recommendation is valid and will follow up annually on the status of the recommendation. As of May 2019, DOD reaffirmed its initial response and has not taken any action to implement our recommendation.
GAO-16-468, May 25, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-9286
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. However, in July 2020, OMB stated that the implementation of this recommendation would be counter to the Administration's focus of prioritizing modernization activities specifically for High Value Assets and, as a result, it does not intend on implementing this recommendation. We disagree and believe that identifying and publishing a specific goal aimed at reducing non-provisioned spending (i.e., spending associated with systems that are not cloud or shared service-based) aligns with the Administration's Cloud Smart strategy to accelerate agency adoption of cloud-based solutions. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. In July 2020, OMB stated that agencies were directed to manage the risk to High Value Assets associated with legacy systems in OMB's December 2018 guidance. While OMB's guidance does direct agencies to identify, report, assess, and remediate issues associated with High Value Assets, it does not require agencies to do so for all legacy systems. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The agency had no comment on the recommendation. In June 2017, Treasury provided an update on the IRS's efforts to ensure that operational analyses are performed on investments in the operations and maintenance phase. However, the recommendation is intended to address issues at the department level and not just at the IRS. In 2017, Treasury declined to provide an update at the department level. As of April 2020, Treasury has not responded to requests for updates. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: The agency agreed with the recommendation. In May 2019, the agency stated that it had conducted an assessment of its legacy system environment and identified 106 legacy IT assets across 18 components. In a March 2020 update, the agency stated that it is in the process of developing a policy to govern all legacy systems, to include modernization and decommissioning plans. The agency plans to publish this policy by March 2021. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: The agency had no comment on the recommendation. In June 2017, Treasury provided an update on the IRS's efforts to modernize the IRS's legacy systems. However, the recommendation is intended to address issues at the department level and not just at the IRS. In 2017, Treasury declined to provide an update at the department level. As of April 2020, Treasury has not responded to requests for updates. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.
GAO-16-119, Feb 18, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, the Department did not identify what action, if any, it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and noted the difficulties in accurately quantifying service contract requirements beyond the budget year. We maintain that collecting this information will assist the department in gaining insights into contracted service requirements and making more strategic decisions about the services it plans to acquire. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. In its response, DOD did not indicate any actions it planned to take to implement this recommendation, and instead noted a number of efforts intended to aid in the management and oversight of services acquisitions. We maintain that a coordinated approach is needed to ensure that collected data is consistent to inform DOD leadership on future contract spending. In December 2019, DOD officials stated that DOD annually reviews requirements for services during program budget reviews and services requirements review boards. These officials noted, however, that the volatility of future program and budget cycles constrains the department's ability to accurately quantify contract service requirements beyond the budget year. We agree that the reviews identified by DOD have merit, but they do not provide senior leadership the visibility necessary to make informed decisions regarding the volume and type of services that should be acquired over the future year defense program. In August 2020, DOD officials stated the department is working to identify actions to address this recommendation. We will continue to monitor this recommendation and will provide updated information.
GAO-16-55, Nov 13, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not state whether it concurred with this recommendation. In January 2020, we received a memorandum from DOD requesting closure of this recommendation. It outlined several steps the department was taking to implement our recommendations and attached some Power Point slides as documentation. However, these slides do not provide sufficient documentation that would enable us to close the recommendations. Once we receive the documentation we are requesting, we will re-assess closure.