Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should identify agency-wide and division performance goals that align with IRS's strategic service goals and objectives for an improved taxpayer experience. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should identify performance measures with targets for improving the taxpayer experience that link with the related performance goals. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that the taxpayer experience measures cover all of the factors for customer service identified in OMB guidance as well as service channels across the tax process phases. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that taxpayer experience measures reflect the highest-impact taxpayer journeys and key transactions, as consistent with OMB guidance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should regularly analyze and use the results of the performance measures and surveys on the taxpayer experience to help improve performance. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop processes for using performance results on the taxpayer experience as part of resource allocation decisions intended to improve performance. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should publicly report available information on taxpayer experience performance, including the measures and related targets, for example by providing it on IRS.gov and in IRS publications. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: GSA should assess and address the reliability of the information used to calculate reported cost savings for the broker program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In June 2020, GSA said the agency would validate system data through regional and broker outreach and fully utilize validated system data to manage the broker program. The agency also said it will develop a quality control plan and follow-up on outcomes. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: GSA should develop outcome-based metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of using brokers to supplement the GSA's leasing workforce. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: Although GSA initially did not concur with this recommendation, the agency stated in June 2020 that it agrees with the recommendation and will take steps to implement it. Specifically, GSA plans to revise the broker performance standards and document broker effectiveness through lease cost avoidance, timely lease replacement, and earned commission credits. We will continue to monitor GSA's progress with implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission should direct the Chief Operating Officer to develop and implement safeguards to better ensure transparency and fairness in SEC's new performance incentive bonus program. Such safeguards could include multiple levels of review of performance ratings and pay decisions and publishing aggregate data on the results of the performance cycle that allow employees to compare results across various groups within the agency while protecting the confidentiality of individual ratings and pay decisions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SEC stated that it concurred with, and plans to implement, our recommendation. In August 2020, SEC officials stated that they were continuing to design the performance incentive bonus program's framework and in the process of acquiring consultative services to assist in validating that its design, communication strategy, and operating practices reflect leading practice and support achieving desired outcomes. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress in ensuring transparency and fairness in its performance incentive bonus program.

Recommendation: The Director of OCS, in developing the new performance management approach for the CSBG program, should ensure that its performance framework includes information on (1) details for how the national measure is linked to and used to assess the three national program goals, (2) descriptions of how the updated state and local performance outcome measures align with national program goals, and (3) a written plan for how OCS will assess the reliability of state performance outcome data. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Community Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation and and stated that it plans to take actions to better align its performance measures with the three national performance goals outlined in the new CSBG Theory of Change. We commend HHS for its plans to address this recommendation, but encourage the agency to focus on aligning its performance outcomes with the three national goals of the CSBG program as established by the CBBG Act, which are similar but not identical to the three goals outlined in the new CSBG Theory of Change. HHS also stated that it would implement additional actions to assess the reliability of state performance outcome data.

Recommendation: The NHTSA Administrator should provide direction and clarification to states to ensure compliance with requirements to assess and report progress made in achieving fatality targets. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, NHTSA told GAO that they had emailed all State Highway Safety Offices in November 2019 to clarify the requirements for states to assess their progress made in achieving fatality targets. NHTSA also told GAO that they plan to conduct a national webinar for State Highway Safety Offices to provide direction on performance management requirements by July 2020. GAO will continue to monitor NHTSA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NHTSA Administrator should develop and implement a mechanism that communicates to Congress and other stakeholders whether states achieve their fatality and serious injury targets. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, GAO confirmed that NHTSA published each state's required safety targets from calendar year 2020 on it website. NHTSA told GAO that it plans to provide performance data on state's achievement of their 2020 targets on its website when data becomes available in the fall of 2021, and complete implementation of this recommendation in 2022. GAO will continue to monitor NHTSA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of USAID should establish outcome-oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of USAID's reform projects. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: USAID concurs with this recommendation, and indicates it will establish a performance-monitoring plan.

Recommendation: The Administrator of USAID should ensure that the agency completes a strategic workforce plan necessary to support its reform efforts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: United States Agency for International Development
Status: Open

Comments: USAID concurs with this recommendation. It affirmed is in the process of finalizing the strategic workforce plan that it will complete by September 30, 2019 and will submit the plan to Congress as directed. USAID stated it will also provide a framework to meet Congressionally-directed staffing levels across the Foreign Service and Civil Service.

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 Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration should develop and document clear procedures for implementing NAP-4C, specifying the process for collecting contractor performance information and describing how officials are to ensure this information can be traced to rating determinations. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) concurred with the recommendation. In February 2020, NNSA issued its fiscal year 2020 Corporate Performance Evaluation Process Annual Implementation Guidance. This guidance included a new section specifying the process for collecting contractor performance information and further details regarding the preparation of interim feedback reports and final performance evaluation reports. However, the guidance is unclear regarding how this information can be traced to rating determinations. In order to provide more transparency and ensure this traceability, NNSA guidance and the Performance Evaluation Reports themselves should more clearly link how collected performance information tracks to rating determinations.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) partially concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, EERE officials stated that cost performance feedback was included in the 2019 final performance evaluation for the EERE Management and Operating contractor. EERE officials also stated that they had incorporated cost performance evaluation criteria into the fiscal year 2020 Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP) for NREL. EERE officials noted that these actions ensure cost performance will be included as part of the ongoing contractor evaluation process. We have requested documentation of the new PEMP and performance evaluation report and, in order to ensure cost performance evaluation criteria are included in the future, EERE should update its policy to require quality information on cost performance going forward.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Environmental Management
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Environmental Management (EM) concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, EM officials stated that they will include the requirement for quality information on cost performance in EM's Cleanup Project Management Policy. According to officials, EM is working on this policy, along with an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that they expect to complete by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Fossil Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, FE officials stated that they had revised and executed the Performance Evaluation and Measurements Plan (PEMP), for the current Management and Operating contract to add a new PEMP measure that addresses monitoring cost growth, additional activities in internal audit, and data quality that addresses our recommendation. We have requested documentation of the PEMP showing the new measures and an updated policy requiring inclusion of quality information on cost performance in Performance Evaulation Reports. Upon receiving those, we will review to determine if it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) concurred with the recommendation. In February 2020, NNSA issued its fiscal year 2020 Corporate Performance Evaluation Process Annual Implementation Guidance. This guidance provides instructions regarding the evaluation of cost performance, including examples of the types of cost information that should be collected and how cost data should be analyzed and described. However, the guidance's template for Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans does not include any explicit cost performance Objectives or Key Outcomes and it is unclear how the cost performance information discussed in the guidance would enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. In order to provide quality cost information that does enable such an overall assessment, NNSA should clarify its guidance regarding cost performance information and how this information links to overall Management and Operating contractor performance.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Nuclear Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) partially concurred with the recommendation. As of May 2020, NE officials stated that they will include criteria for "day-to-day" cost performance in the annual Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP) for fiscal year 2020. NE's evaluation of the contractor's performance against those criteria will be included in the year-end performance reports of its Management and Operating contractor beginning in fiscal year 2020. NE officials stated that modifying the fiscal year 2020 PEMP with added cost criteria, usually done in April, has been delayed due to COVID-19 and that they expect to complete the modification by the end of May 2020. Once the cost criteria are included and evaluated in the Performance Evaluation Report, we will review to determine if it addresses our recommendation. In addition to changes to the fiscal year 2020 report, NE should update its policy to require such criteria for evaluating contractor cost performance going forward.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Science should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Science
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Science (SC) partially concurred with the recommendation. In commenting on our report in August 2019, DOE stated that by focusing on the annual Performance Evaluation Reports (PER), our report does not capture the cost performance reviews conducted in day-to-day contract oversight, the annual laboratory planning process, and contract extend/compete decisions. In its comments, DOE stated that since SC conducts cost performance reviews in normal operations and at the year-end annual evaluation process, adequate information is available to assess whether the contractor cost performance is acceptable to the department. As of April 2020, SC had not updated these comments. In the report, we note that SC conducts some cost performance evaluation activities outside of the annual performance evaluation process, although we did not assess these efforts. While there may be adequate information available, SC does not commonly document this information or assessments from such activities in the PERs. We continue to believe that the PERs are important sources of information for contract management--particularly for acquisition decisions and oversight of spending on cost-reimbursement contracts--and that action is needed to improve these formal records of contractor performance. By not including quality information on overall cost performance and assessments in PERs, SC is missing a valuable opportunity to better document contractors' cost performance, improve acquisition decision-making, and strengthen oversight of billions of dollars in contracting. We continue to believe that it is important for SC to implement the recommendation and that by doing so, the office would have better assurance that Management and Operating contractor performance evaluations fully address required elements.

Recommendation: The Director of OPM, in consultation with the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, should establish and implement a process for regularly updating the performance management website to include all available guidance and resources, making this information easily accessible, and providing links to other related websites. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OPM agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, OPM stated that they had identified available guidance and resources and updated the OPM Performance Management website. Additionally, OPM stated that they were establishing and documenting a process, which will be documented via standard operating procedures, to regularly update the performance management website with available guidance and resources. To fully address this recommendation, OPM needs to implement that process, which it indicated it plans to do by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should develop and implement a mechanism for agencies to routinely and independently share promising practices and lessons learned, such as through allowing agencies to post such information on OPM's Performance Management portal. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OPM agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, OPM stated that they had developed and implemented a mechanism for agencies to routinely and independently share promising practices and lessons learned on OPM's Performance Management Portal and would evaluate its effectiveness moving forward. To fully implement the recommendation. OPM stated they are continuing to engage agency stakeholders and evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts. OPM stated they plan to be able to to close this recommendation during fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of OPM, in consultation with the CHCO Council, should develop a strategic approach for identifying and sharing emerging research and innovations in performance management. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OPM agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, OPM stated that it is working with OMB, Cross-Agency Priority Goal Leaders, and other representatives from across government to develop a comprehensive strategic approach for identifying and sharing emerging research and innovations. According to OPM, the next working group meeting is scheduled for the summer of 2020. As of January 2020, OPM stated they are implementing certain strategic approaches for identifying and sharing emerging research and innovations in performance management. OPM stated they are also developing a white paper on agency reskilling efforts, likely focusing on engagement and retention, which would better position supervisors to engage in innovative performance management practices on a routine basis. OPM stated they aim to to close this recommendation by the end of the calendar year.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should direct the leaders of the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP Goal to ensure future updates to the action plan, and the resulting federal data strategy, provide additional details on improving the use of data, including performance information, more extensively within federal agencies. The action plan should identify performance goals; contributing agencies, organizations, programs, and other activities; those responsible for leading implementation within these contributors; planned actions; time frames; and means to assess progress. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and contributors to the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset cross-agency priority (CAP) goal, have taken some actions to address this recommendation. For example, in May 2019 they released a set of recommended practices designed to support agency implementation of the federal data strategy. In particular, several of these practices relate to data-driven decision making, encouraging agencies to "champion data use," "use data to guide decision making," and "use data to increase accountability." However, as of September 2020, the action plans for the implementation of the federal data strategy, and the overall CAP goal, did not include all of the required information. For example, they did not include a means to assess progress related to efforts to improve data-driven decision making in the federal government. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions related to implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB, in coordination with the PIC, should prioritize efforts to identify and share among agencies proven practices for increasing, and challenges that hamper, the use of performance information in decision making more extensively within agencies. At a minimum, this effort should involve the agencies that our survey suggests may offer such insights. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) have taken some actions towards addressing this recommendation. For example, in 2018 and 2019, the PIC hosted a series of workshops focused on relevant topics, such as how agency staff can develop performance measures and analyze data, and how data-driven reviews are used across the federal government. However, as of October 2020, they had not yet undertaken efforts to directly address the recommendation. They have not engaged the agencies highlighted by our survey results to identify proven practices that would increase, or challenges that are hampering, data-driven decision making within agencies. We will continue to monitor actions related to implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: OAPM should monitor how field offices currently manage older, existing Management and Operating contract documents and use the results to improve its process for accessing such documents. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation. Per NNSA, as of October 2018, it was developing a plan and schedule for implementing Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs), which will include monitoring how NNSA field offices manage older management and operating contract documents and use the results to improve access to such documents. As of April 2020, we will continue to monitor how NNSA carries out its oversight of field offices contract document management practices.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance--through an update to its Circular No. A-11, a memorandum, or other means--to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB provided a time frame for implementing some of the federal program inventory requirements. In that guidance, OMB states that beginning with the 2021 budget cycle, agencies' program activities will be used for the inventory's program-level reporting requirements. This will allow OMB and agencies to leverage federal spending data reported on USASpending.gov as required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. Those data can be presented at the program activity level, and therefore could meet the inventory requirements to present program-level spending data. However, OMB's guidance does not yet present any time frames or milestones for meeting other inventory requirements, such as describing the purpose of each program or how it contributes to the agency's mission and goals. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should consider--as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory--using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB has taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. In its June 2019 and July 2020 updates to Circular No. A-11, OMB states that it and agencies will meet some of the federal inventory requirements by leveraging the spending data reported on USASpending.gov. The guidance notes that this information is provided in a structured information architecture format on USASpending.gov. In July 2019, OMB staff told us that they considered an information architecture approach in response to our past reports on the topic. However, OMB has not yet clarified in guidance or elsewhere how the information architecture format of USASpending.gov-which is currently focused on spending data-could be used to meet additional information reporting requirements and our past recommendations related to the inventory. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond agency priority goals, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: As of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. OMB and the PIC, in guidance provided through Circular No. A-11 and the Goal Playbook respectively, have encouraged agencies to expand their use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals. In March 2019, OMB staff told us that they would work with the PIC to provide agencies with case studies and other resources that could help expand their use of data-driven reviews, should agencies choose to do so. However, as of October 2020, OMB and the PIC have not yet identified and shared practices related to expanding the use of those reviews as we recommended. We will continue to monitor OMB's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps to ensure that state-based marketplace annual sustainability plans, to the extent possible, have complete 5-year budget forecasts. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it had updated its requirement to request 2-year budget forecasts instead of 5-year budget forecasts. In its December 2017 statement of actions, HHS stated that it was working to streamline and simplify its data collection effort as part of the annual sustainability plan. In April 2018, HHS provided a revised 2-year budget forecast template as well as related state marketplace training documentation. As of April 2020, HHS had not provided further documented evidence of its streamlined process using the 2-year budget forecast template or justification that a 5-year budget is not necessary for assessing long-term financial sustainability and state marketplace sustainability risks.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps to ensure that all state-based marketplaces provide required annual financial audit reports which are in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that it continued to provide technical assistance such as webinars and other trainings on independent financial and programmatic audit submission requirements. In April 2018, HHS provided evidence that it had taken some steps to ensure that state-based marketplaces provide required annual financial audit reports, including draft financial audit procedures, documentation of related training provided to states, and a revised HHS state officer annual review checklist emphasizing financial audit reporting. However as of April 2020, the department had not provided evidence of finalized procedures, examples of checklist usage, or of states providing annual financial audit reports. Further, HHS training documentation stated that state-based marketplaces could provide alternate financial audit reports, such as a state-wide financial audit report, in lieu of a marketplace specific report. It is not clear from the provided evidence that the department has ensured that state-based marketplaces are in compliance with financial audit reporting requirements. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes further action.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps to ensure that marketplace IT self-sustainability risk assessments are based on fully defined measurable terms, a clear categorization process, and a defined response to high risks. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that it would refine its marketplace self-sustainability risk assessment process to provide greater insight into the state marketplace sustainability efforts and to identify areas where states may need assistance. In April 2018, HHS provided evidence that it had taken some steps to base its risk assessments on fully defined processes. CMS provided documentation of clearly defined and measurable terms used for state marketplace budget analysis. However, HHS did not provide evidence that these defined terms were incorporated into analyses or risk assessments. As of April 2020, CMS has not provided evidence that it took steps to develop a clear categorization process or a defined response to high risks. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps to ensure that states develop, update, and follow performance measurement plans that allow the states to continuously identify and assess the most important IT metrics for their state marketplaces. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS partially concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that though each marketplace was accountable for managing and reporting its own IT metrics in accordance with federal and state law, HHS would work with states on the improvement of their management and operations through technical assistance and oversight and accountability measures. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps to conduct operational analysis reviews and systematically monitor the performance of states' marketplace IT systems using key performance indicators. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS did not concur with our recommendation and stated that it conducted Open Enrollment Readiness Reviews to assess marketplace key performance indicators, which according to CMS officials, are similar to operational analysis reviews. However, as of October 2018, HHS had not provided evidence that the Open Enrollment Readiness Reviewed systematically and comprehensively reported on the key performance indicators or include discussion of other key elements identified in best practices for operational analysis reviews, such as how objectives could be better met, or costs could be saved. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to take steps to ensure that metrics collected from states to monitor marketplaces' operational performance link to performance goals and include baselines and targets to monitor progress. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS partially concurred with our recommendation and stated in its December 2017 update that states were responsible for monitoring their own performance measures but HHS would continue to review IT metrics of state marketplaces in the implementation phase of their systems through technical assistance activities and oversight and accountability measures. As of April 2020, the agency had not yet provided sufficient evidence that it has implemented the recommendation. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing the recommendation and provide updates when the agency takes action.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs to assign responsibility to a specific office or official to develop and implement a plan to assess employees' safety training needs and monitor employees' compliance with Indian Affairs' safety training requirements.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation. In early August 2017, Indian Affairs reported that BIA regional leadership, in collaboration with Indian Affairs' safety office, will develop and publish a safety training plan for all Indian Affairs employees with responsibilities for safety inspections. Additionally, Indian Affairs reported that BIA and BIE will develop and implement a policy to ensure that first-line supervisors monitor and report on whether employees have completed the training requirements. Indian Affairs reported a target date of January 31, 2020 for implementing this recommendation. In May 2018, Indian Affairs reported that it had completed a draft training plan and noted that it had been submitted to management for review. We requested copies of the training plan but as of August 2018, we had not been provided any. In April 2019, Indian Affairs provided documentation that it had developed and implemented a plan to assess all employees' safety training needs. In addition, agency officials reported that Interior's new training management system allows supervisors to track employees' completion of required safety training courses. However, the agency did not provide documentation that senior managers are overseeing employees' compliance with Indian Affairs' safety training requirements. In May 2020, Indian Affairs officials told us that they had developed a process to generate reports on personnel safety training compliance and would provide documentation demonstrating that such reports are shared with management to address training noncompliance. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions in this area.

Recommendation: To accelerate efforts to develop a modern, credible, and effective performance management system the Assistant Secretary for HR&A should, with input from VHA stakeholders, ensure that meaningful distinctions are being made in employee performance ratings by (1) developing and implementing a standardized, comprehensive performance management training program for supervisors of Title 5, Title 38, and Title 38-Hybrid employees based on leading practices and ensuring procedures are in place to support effective performance conversations between supervisors and employees; (2) reviewing and revising Title 5 and Title 38 performance management policies consistent with leading practices (e.g., require definition of all performance levels); and (3) developing and implementing a process to standardize performance plan elements, standards, and metrics for common positions across VHA that are covered under VA's Title 5 performance management system.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: VA partially agreed with GAO's December 2016 recommendation. As of January 2020, VA has made progress toward addressing this recommendation. VA officials described a new pilot performance management system that is being used to develop an enterprise-wide performance management solution. VA officials also stated that they were developing policy revisions for performance management that are scheduled to be completed later this year. These actions, when fully implemented, should help VA make meaningful distinctions in performance and hold employees accountable.

Recommendation: To accelerate efforts to develop a modern, credible, and effective performance management system, the Assistant Secretary for HR&A should, with input from VHA stakeholders, develop a plan for how and when it intends to implement a modern information technology (IT) system to support employee performance management processes.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partially agreed with GAO's December 2016 recommendation and as of January 2020 has made progress toward implementing the recommendation. For example, VA officials told GAO that they implemented a pilot project to develop a standard IT performance management system that started with about 12,000 employees and has expanded to about 67,00 employees. They told GAO that they are currently in the process of developing an enterprise-wide performance management IT solution. Activities such as finalizing a business case and analyzing alternatives are still in progress. GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress on this effort. Successful planning and implementation of a modern IT system should help VA capture reliable, timely, department-wide employee performance information and may also help VA realize cost savings by eliminating inefficient paper-based procedures.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of Defense should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that review meetings are led by the agency head or COO.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. DOD officials previously told us that they interpreted relevant guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide them with flexibility to delegate responsibility for conducting these reviews. However, as of July 2020, OMB's guidance continues to clearly state that the agency head and/or Chief Operating Officer, with support of the Performance Improvement Officer, are responsible for leading agency reviews. In May and June 2020, DOD officials described to us meetings that agency officials used to review progress on each of the agency's priority goals. However, neither the Secretary nor Deputy Secretary of Defense were involved in those review meetings. We will continue to monitor DOD's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that progress on each APG is reviewed in an in-person review meeting at least quarterly.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department concurred with this recommendation. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us actions the agency has taken to conduct reviews consistent with what we recommended. For example, they provided a document confirming that officials reviewed one of the priority goals in an in-person meeting. However, they did not provide documentation to demonstrate that review processes for the agency's other priority goals are held in-person or at least quarterly. We have requested, but as of April 2020 have not received, this additional documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, the Secretary of State should work with the COO and PIO to modify the Department's review processes to ensure that the reviews are led by the agency head or COO.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department did not agree or disagree with this recommendation and, as of March 2020, has taken limited actions to address it. In October 2019, State Department officials described to us how the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is involved in reviewing progress on one of the agency's priority goals. However, as of April 2020, the State Department has not provided documentation we requested to corroborate the COO's involvement in this review, or reviews for the agency's other priority goals. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress.

Recommendation: To better ensure that CBP's Office of Field Operations' (OFO) staffing processes are transparent and to help ensure CBP can demonstrate that these resource decisions have effectively addressed CBP's mission needs, the Commissioner of CBP should document the methodology and process OFO uses to allocate staff to land ports of entry on the southwest border, including the rationales and factors considered in making these decisions.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2017, CBP's Office of Field Operations began working with a contractor to develop a comprehensive CBP position allocation methodology and tool. According to CBP officials, the purpose of this tool was to ensure a data driven, transparent process for allocating CBP resources--including staff--to land ports of entry on the southwest border. CBP officials stated that the contractor completed the tool in January 2018, CBP tested the tool in fiscal year 2018, and CBP planned to implement the tool in fiscal year 2019. However, CBP officials told us in September 2020 that a subsequent reorganization of the Office of Field Operations rendered the tool unusable without further modification. As a result, they used a manual method to allocate staff in fiscal year 2020 and plan to do the same in fiscal year 2021. As of September 2020, CBP officials planned to document the methodology and process they are now using to allocate staff to land ports of entry, including rationales and factors considered, by November 2020. This recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To help SEC address identified personnel management challenges, and to help enhance the credibility of its performance management system, the Chairman of SEC should direct the COO and OHR to conduct periodic validations (with staff input) of the performance management system and make changes, as appropriate, based on these validations.

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SEC management and the union agreed in November 2018 to implement a new performance management system and a new incentive bonus program in 2020. According to SEC officials, SEC plans to work with OPM to validate the new performance management system by conducting focus groups with staff at the midpoint of the 2020 appraisal period and surveying staff on the new system at the conclusion of the 2020 appraisal period. These plans are consistent with our 2013 recommendation that SEC should conduct periodic validations of its performance management system. In August 2020, SEC reported that it began implementation of the new 2-tier performance management program and will complete the annual rating cycle in December 2020, with feedback and appraisal closeout activities occurring in early calendar year 2021. According to SEC, OPM will assess the new program after calendar year 2020 performance cycle activities are completed. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress in validating the new performance management system.

Recommendation: To enhance the value of Performance.gov for intended audiences and improve the ability to identify and prioritize potential improvements, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--working with the Performance Improvement Council and the General Services Administration--should seek to ensure that all performance, search, and customer satisfaction metrics, consistent with leading practices outlined in HowTo.gov, are tracked for the website, and, where appropriate, create goals for those metrics to help identify and prioritize potential improvements to Performance.gov.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration (GSA) had taken some actions toward addressing this recommendation. According to information that OMB staff provided in March 2019, OMB and GSA tracked 12 metrics for Performance.gov that are recommended for federal websites. However, as of October 2020, OMB and GSA had not created goals for any of those metrics, nor did they track 12 additional recommended metrics. In March 2019, GSA staff told us that, in lieu of goals, OMB and GSA staff held regular meetings to discuss the data collected for the metrics they tracked. However, without the additional metrics or any goals, OMB and GSA lack a full understanding of how well the website is performing, and what actions are needed to improve its performance and usability to achieve desired results. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that HHS is adequately and comprehensively assessing HPP and PHEP awardees' performance and progress in meeting the medical and public health preparedness goals of the cooperative agreements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct ASPR and CDC to develop objective and quantifiable performance targets and incremental milestones that correspond to the new HPP and PHEP performance measures, against which HHS can gauge progress toward the medical and public health preparedness goals of the cooperative agreements and direct technical assistance, as needed.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: Since we examined the HPP and PHEP cooperative agreements in 2012, ASPR had developed few targets for the HPP program measures or their corresponding indicators that were contained in the HPP performance measurement guidance documents issued for Budget Periods (BP) 2-5, ending June 30, 2017. Additionally, the new HPP performance measure implementation guidance for the 5-year project cycle from 2017-2022 introduces 28 performance measures, with few having targets; the guidance notes that corresponding goals or targets may be set at a later date after data from the first budget period of this new project cycle has been reviewed. Regarding PHEP, CDC had developed performance targets for about half of the performance measures as of the PHEP BP5 performance measurement guidance (BP5 ended June 30, 2017). These performance measures generally remain the same, with existing targets, for BP1 (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018) of the new 5-year budget cycle. GAO recognizes that it may not be appropriate to develop performance targets for every performance measure depending on the desired process or outcome; however, both agencies still have work to do in this area. In November 2017, both ASPR and CDC officials noted that they could not commit to setting consistent targets with incremental milestones over a budget cycle and therefore could not implement the recommendation. As of August 2018, there was no change from the agencies' position that they do not have plans to fully implement the recommendation at this time.

Recommendation: To help ensure that HHS is adequately and comprehensively assessing HPP and PHEP awardees' performance and progress in meeting the medical and public health preparedness goals of the cooperative agreements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should ensure that performance measures and targets remain consistent across the 5-year project cycle and that any future measures be comparable to determine whether awardees are making progress toward meeting short- and long-term medical and public health preparedness goals of the cooperative agreements.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: Since we first examined the HPP and PHEP cooperative agreements in 2012, ASPR and CDC had made efforts to maintain consistency in their performance measures, particularly in the last 3 years of the prior project cycle which ended June 30, 2017. However, because part of the recommendation includes consistency of performance measures into future project cycles, we also examined whether both cooperative agreements continued to use basically the same performance measures into the current 5-year cycle, which began July 1, 2017. ASPR's HPP has made a significant change in its performance measures, introducing a new set of 28 performance measures for this new 5-year cycle. CDC's PHEP performance measures generally remained consistent in the last two budget periods of the prior 5-year cycle, and remained generally the same for the first year of the new 5-year cycle (some measures were "retired," though key components from a measure may continue to be used by CDC in other types of reviews). Additionally, in November 2017, both CDC and ASPR officials noted that they may need to continue to adjust the performance measures during the new 5-year cycle. As of August 2018, as a result of the change to HPP's measures and the agency statements in November 2017, GAO anticipates keeping this recommendation open at least for the next few budget periods, in order to determine whether the agencies maintain consistency with the performance measures during the new project cycle.

Recommendation: To better leverage agency quarterly performance reviews as a mechanism to manage performance toward agency priority and other agency-level performance goals, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should work with the Performance Improvement Council and other relevant groups to identify and share promising practices to help agencies extend their quarterly performance reviews to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their agency performance goals.

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

Comments: As of October 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) have taken little action to address this recommendation. In August 2017, PIC staff told us that they were working to identify examples where agencies had included representatives from outside organizations in their performance reviews, and would then disseminate promising practices based on those experiences. However, according to information shared by OMB and PIC staff in March 2019, they had not taken any additional action, nor had they identified or shared any such practices. OMB staff emphasized that while some agencies found it is useful to engage external stakeholders in their reviews, agencies generally view them as internal management meetings. OMB's July 2020 guidance continues to direct agencies to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel from outside the agency that contribute to the accomplishment of Agency Priority Goals or other priorities. However, supplementing this guidance with insights into how to do this well could help ensure that agencies can effectively bring together key players to achieve common goals. We will continue to monitor the status of actions taken to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To more effectively implement SBA's expansion of OIT field staff as required by the SBJA, the Administrator of the SBA should update SBA's plan for additional OIT staff to include funding sources and time frames, as well as possible efficiencies from clearly defining roles and responsibilities and leveraging other entities' export assistance resources.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SBA concurred with our recommendations. In response to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (SBJA) requirement that a total of 30 export finance specialists be hired nationwide by September 2012, SBA noted resource constraints and filled only 19 positions at that time. In 2016, SBA reported progress toward the SBJA requirement despite agency staffing limitations and staffed a total of 21 or 70% of the 30 required export finance specialist (EFS) positions. SBA officials also reported that they had hired staff to replace retirements or other staff departures, but determined that because of finite funding resources it would not be feasible to hire additional OIT staff. They instead took steps to mitigate the shortfall by engaging other field office staff to more proactively market its international trade programs to small businesses. In particular, in 2017, as part a result of the new Administrations' Agency Reform plan, SBA undertook a Field Alignment Project. Specific to OIT, this project was intended to better leverage certain District office field staff such that they would increase outreach efforts to promote exports as required by the SBJA and in response to GAO's recommendations. This was done by assigning district staff new specific output goals intended to increase export promotion activities. In January 2020, OIT reported hiring four additional export finance specialists, bringing the total hired to 25. OIT also reported establishing a strategy for future hires to be assigned to existing Export Assistance Centers, and requesting fiscal year 2021 funding to hire individuals to fill the remaining five positions. While these steps partially mitigate the shortfall and are in the spirit of the SBJA requirement and GAO's recommendations, as of January 2020 SBA has not yet achieved the 30 export finance specialists required by the SBJA.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, Treasury staff said that steps continue to be taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. In June 2019, the Senate confirmed a new OFR Director. Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We will continue to monitor progress in implementing these steps.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019 Treasury staff said that steps are being taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway as staff from both entities meet on a weekly basis and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. The Senate confirmed a new OFR director in June 2019. In June 2017, Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We continue to monitor FSOC and OFR actions that would be responsive to clarifying responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability.

Recommendation: To establish accountability for meeting the programs' goal of increasing the participation of traditionally underrepresented groups in the highway construction workforce, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FHWA Administrator to create and implement an oversight mechanism that (1) holds states accountable for meeting federal training criteria and (2) clearly stipulates how FHWA will assess state program effectiveness, including what type of program achievement data states are to submit and how such data will be used. This oversight mechanism should include assessing the effectiveness of its division offices in overseeing state activities.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FHWA has taken initial steps to implement a mechanism for state oversight, which includes collecting program implementation information from each state. FHWA plans to convene a working group to review this information and provide feedback to states on their programs. FHWA officials then anticipate sharing best practices and essential requirements for the program through webinars and other technical assistance. As of August 2019, FHWA has gathered information from states and is in the early stages of implementing this oversight mechanism.

Recommendation: To promote an efficient use of resources and to better plan for the design of a new performance management system, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy to, in conjunction with the DOD Comptroller, help ensure that information identifying and supporting the costs of the NSPS termination and new performance management system is documented, reliable, traceable to a source document, and readily available for examination.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the department's new performance management system and any efforts to address this recommendation. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, this documentation. has not been received. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To help implement a fair, effective, and credible performance management system for its civilian employees--whether NSPS or another--the Secretary of Defense should review and evaluate the effectiveness of the department's training.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To help implement a fair, effective, and credible performance management system for its civilian employees--whether NSPS or another--the Secretary of Defense should ensure that guidance is in place for conducting a postdecisional analysis that specifies what process the components should follow to investigate and eliminate potential barriers to fair and equitable ratings.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.

Recommendation: To help implement a fair, effective, and credible performance management system for its civilian employees--whether NSPS or another--the Secretary of Defense should include, as part of the department's monitoring of the implementation of its system, efforts to monitor and evaluate how the safeguards specifically are implemented by lower-level organizations across the department.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which repealed the National Security Personnel System required that DOD (1) take all actions necessary for the orderly termination of NSPS and (2) transition of all employees and positions from NSPS to legacy personnel systems or, if applicable, to the personnel systems that would have applied if NSPS had never been established. The law also mandated that the transition be completed by no later than January 1, 2012 and required DOD to establish a new performance management system, among other things. DOD began to implement a new performance management system in 2016. GAO staff met with DOD officials in October 2019 to discuss the status of the new system and any efforts to address these recommendations. DOD officials agreed to provide documentation related to these efforts, but, as of November 2019, have not yet done so. Further updates will be made once that documentation is received and reviewed.