Recommendation: The Assistant General Counsel should provide additional information on the process OACP uses to investigate potential consumer protection violations, to assess risk, and to pursue enforcement actions and establish a timeframe for doing so. Such transparency could be provided through the handbook that OACP is currently drafting or through other public means such as providing additional information on its website. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Assistant General Counsel should take steps to provide transparency and clarity into the results of OACP's enforcement of consume including investigations that do not result in a consent order. Such information could be aggregated data about cases, investigations, or warning letters. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: Congress should consider requiring VA to establish an overall wait-time performance measure for veterans to receive care under the VCCP that will permit VA to measure and monitor the timeliness of VCCP appointments and compare timeliness to that of VA medical facilities. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Health should align its monitoring metrics with the time frames established in the VCCP scheduling process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Health should conduct a review of community provider enrollment and use of the HSRM to include identifying and taking steps to remove any challenges to community provider enrollment and use; and, if determined appropriate, establish a requirement for community providers to use the HSRM; and (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Health should direct VAMC leadership to assess their community care staffing and resource needs, and develop a plan to address any identified risks to their ability to schedule appointments in a timely manner, including strategies to adjust staff levels and address recruitment and retention challenges as needed. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Associate Commissioner of the Administration for Children and Families Children's Bureau within the Department of Health and Human Services should develop a process to assess the reliability of grantee performance information contained within annual performance reports for tribal recipients of its Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education should take steps to alert grantees of the Native Language Immersion Cooperative Agreement when they are late in submitting performance reports. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Education should develop a process to assess the quality and reliability of a sample of grantee performance data for the Native Language Immersion Cooperative Agreement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Education
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Director of BOP should update its program evaluation plan to set a new timeline for conducting an evaluation of FPI. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Justice: Bureau of Prisons
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: In order to help promote a meaningful program assessment, the Director of BOP should develop a goal for FPI related to recidivism reduction and measure progress toward meeting that goal.(Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Justice: Bureau of Prisons
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should ensure that DOL has a procedure to help the agency analyze reasons for delays in processing National Dislocated Worker Grant applications and grant modifications. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should identify and implement additional mechanisms to allow EAA grantees to share information about innovative and best practices with each other, such as DOL hosting an in-person or virtual national convening for grantees. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should work with the Federal Co-Chair of the ARC to identify and implement mechanisms that allow for information sharing between the two agencies regarding their EAA programs, including sharing grant decisions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Federal Co-Chair of the ARC should work with the Secretary of Labor to identify and implement mechanisms that allow for information sharing between the two agencies regarding their EAA programs, including sharing grant decisions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Appalachian Regional Commission
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Federal Co-Chair of the ARC should develop a plan for addressing issues related to performance data for POWER Initiative grants. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Appalachian Regional Commission
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should, as part of the Department's evidence building processes, prioritize improving the quality of evidence on the impact of job training for dislocated workers. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should identify the expected time frame for providing the first report to Congress that is responsive to the WIOA requirement for an annual report that includes research and evaluation findings. In addition, the agency should communicate this time frame to relevant congressional committees. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

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

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

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct Departmental Administration to work with the mission areas to develop department-level outcome-oriented performance goals and related measures for the business centers, and use them to assess the effectiveness and impact of the business center reforms. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, USDA officials agreed with our recommendation and stated that the department is evaluating options for the development of performance metrics and inclusion of these metrics and related information as part of the regular and recurring reviews by the department's Deputy Secretary who is identified as the Chief Operating Officer.

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

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

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

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Management of Budget should update the Guidelines to include GAO's leading practices of developing monitoring plans that are based on risks, ensuring that monitoring staff have appropriate qualifications, establishing procedures to close-out programs, developing staff skills regarding evaluations, and establishing mechanisms for following up on evaluation recommendations. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: OMB disagreed with the recommendation and suggested it would be more effective to remind agencies that, in addition to the guidelines, they should follow all other relevant OMB guidance affecting monitoring and evaluation. OMB asserted that this guidance contains provisions relevant to our leading practices not included in the Foreign Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines. However, we believe it is important for OMB to incorporate this other guidance into the Foreign Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, if only by reference, to emphasize the importance of these practices in the context of monitoring and evaluation of foreign assistance. As of April 28, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget has not implemented this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor this issue.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should update the Department's monitoring and evaluation policies to require the agency to conduct impact evaluations on all pilot programs before replicating or expanding, or conduct performance evaluations for those programs and provide a justification for not conducting an impact evaluation. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation and noted that impact evaluations require a significant resource investment beyond what would be appropriate for more programs. However, DOD is in the process of updating its evaluation guidelines to allow for, but not require, impact evaluations in appropriate cases at all levels of evaluation activities.

Recommendation: The Department of State's U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, in collaboration with HHS and other implementing agencies, should update the PEPFAR monitoring and evaluation policies to require these agencies to conduct impact evaluations on all pilot programs before replicating or expanding, or conduct performance evaluations for those programs and provide a justification for not conducting an impact evaluation. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: State agreed with the intent of the recommendation (see appendix V for written comments). State explained that impact evaluations are often not feasible in the context of assistance provided under PEPFAR and described its alternative approach to evaluating new initiatives. State indicated it would update appropriate PEPFAR policies to clarify when agencies should conduct impact and/or performance evaluations. These clarifications will reflect how State evaluates PEPFAR programs in practice in accordance with OMB guidance and legislation, according to State.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSD (Policy)), the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation—in consultation with the services—determine the analytic products needed and the level of detail that is sufficient to serve as a common starting point but flexible to allow for variation of analysis to support senior leader decisions, and update these products to reflect current strategy and intelligence estimates, as well as the anticipated operational approaches needed to address future threats. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and, as of January 2020, has taken some steps to address it. Specifically, in May 2019, DOD sent a follow up letter to our final report that said that the Department's position on the report has not substantially changed and that the actions identified in the Department's initial response remain underway. DOD also noted that the FY 2021-2025 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) signed in April 2019 directly addresses many of the report's recommendations and that the Joint Staff is leading an aggressive effort on joint force innovation and experimentation, with Tri-Chair oversight. In September 2019, we reviewed the DPG and found that it partially addressed our recommendation. In the DPG, DOD identified analytic products that would serve as the department's starting point for analysis in fiscal years 2021-2025. DOD has also begun developing some of these analytic products, including several defense planning scenarios that it developed in December 2018 to reflect some of the threats outlined in the National Defense Strategy. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD will need to develop the additional products it needs for the remaining key threats identified in the National Defense Strategy. Additionally, keeping these products updated will require sustained attention by the department, but the direction provided by DOD was limited to budget guidance for fiscal years 2021-2025. The direction would more closely adhere to the intent of our recommendation if it were provided in an enduring guidance or policy document. We will continue to monitor DOD actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that OUSD (Policy) provide specific guidance requiring the services to explore a range of innovative force structure approaches relevant to the key threats identified in the National Defense Strategy, including identifying key assumptions on which the services must conduct sensitivity analyses. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and, as of January 2020, has taken some steps to address it. Specifically, in May 2019, DOD sent a follow up letter to our final report that said that the Department's position on the report has not substantially changed and that the actions identified in the Department's initial response remain underway. DOD also noted that the FY 2021-2025 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) signed in April 2019 directly addresses many of the report's recommendations and that the Joint Staff is leading an aggressive effort on joint force innovation and experimentation, with Tri-Chair oversight. In September 2019, we reviewed the DPG and found that it directed some actions relevant to our recommendation regarding the need to explore a range of innovative force structure approaches. However, it did not directly address the need to require the services to conduct sensitivity analysis on key assumptions. The defense planning scenarios that DOD developed in December 2018 identify critical parameters for analytical exploration and encourage DOD components to conduct excursions and sensitivity analysis of assumptions, which we found has not been sufficient to spur this type of analysis in the past. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD needs to require the services to conduct this analysis. We will continue to monitor DOD actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should establish an approach for comparing competing analyses and conducting joint analyses for force structure to support senior leaders as they seek to implement the National Defense Strategy. This could include establishing a separate body with these capabilities and/or specifying the organizational responsibilities and processes for conducting these comparisons and analyses. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and, as of January 2020, has taken some steps to address it. Specifically, in May 2019, DOD sent a follow up letter to our final report that said that the Department's position on the report has not substantially changed and that the actions identified in the Department's initial response remain underway. DOD also noted that the FY 2021-2025 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) signed in April 2019 directly addresses many of the report's recommendations and that the Joint Staff is leading an aggressive effort on joint force innovation and experimentation, with Tri-Chair oversight. In September 2019, we reviewed the DPG and found that it included steps that could lay the groundwork for DOD to compare competing analyses and conduct joint force structure analyses. To fully implement this recommendation, DOD needs to establish an approach for doing so, which could include establishing a body or process for conducting comparisons or joint analyses. We will continue to monitor DOE actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions should annually collect and evaluate HFAs' risk assessments, which include HFAs' risk levels. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: According to Treasury, as of March 2019, the agency had requested that each Housing Finance Agency evaluate its controls and update its Risk and Control Matrix to ensure that it reflects the risk assessment level of each control that has been assessed and to provide this information to Treasury. Treasury stated that it would evaluate the risk assessments to verify that the appropriate risk level had been assessed and that proper segregation of duties exists. As of August 2020, Treasury had not demonstrated that it had annually collected or evaluated HFA's risk assessments.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FHWA, working with FRA, should evaluate the Section 130 Program's requirements to determine whether they allow states sufficient flexibility to adequately address current and emerging grade-crossing safety issues. As part of this evaluation, FHWA should determine whether statutory changes to the program are necessary to improve its effectiveness. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) completed a summary report, in cooperation with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, on stakeholder views of the Section 130 program requirements. As part of this evaluation, Volpe obtained feedback from stakeholders about their experience with the program requirements and their views on the flexibility of the requirements to address current and emerging grade-crossing safety issues. The report also contained a literature review. On August 17, 2020, FHWA reported to GAO that FHWA will continue to explore what statutory changes may be appropriate during the upcoming reauthorization cycle. The recommendation remains open because FHWA has not yet determined whether statutory changes to the program are necessary to improve its effectiveness. GAO will continue to monitor FHWA's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense--in coordination with the military departments; U.S. Strategic Command; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; CAPE; and other relevant components of DOD--identify in the planned charter and DOD directive clear roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In June 2019, in response to our recommendation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a charter for the NDERG that included information about the roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. The charter also indicated that this information should be included in the appropriate DOD directive and/or issuance. This effort is still in progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense--in coordination with the military departments; U.S. Strategic Command; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; CAPE; and other relevant components of DOD--establish in the planned charter and DOD directive methods for the NDERG to communicate and collaborate with other organizations that have oversight responsibilities for portions of the nuclear enterprise. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In June 2019, in response to our recommendation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a charter for the NDERG that included information about the roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. The charter also indicated that this information should be included in the appropriate DOD directive and/or issuance. This effort is still in progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (NLC3S Council) co-chairs), and U.S. Strategic Command--update the applicable DOD guidance (such as the NLC3S Council's and Executive Management Board's charters) and identify whether there is a need to request changes to statutory or presidential guidance in order to clarify changes to roles and responsibilities for NC3 oversight. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 2020, according to DOD officials, DOD is working to update applicable guidance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as NLC3S Council co-chairs),and U.S. Strategic Command--update the applicable guidance to establish methods for communication and collaboration among organizations that have oversight responsibilities for portions of the nuclear enterprise as changes are considered for charters, guidance, and laws to reflect the changes to NC3 oversight. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 2020, according to DOD officials, DOD is working to update applicable guidance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should determine the estimated effects of cost inflation on planned CSCP embassy construction capacity and time frames and update this information for stakeholders on a regular basis, such as through the annual budgeting process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO had developed a worldwide construction inflation rate and had integrated this rate into its bureau budget request for fiscal year 2021. According to OBO officials, OBO is working to update its budget guidance to ensure the inflation rate is updated and integrated into future bureau budget requests on a regular basis. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should ensure that the Director of OBO conducts an OBO-wide workforce analysis to assess staffing levels and workload capacity needed to carry out the full range of OBO's mission goals, to include the CSCP. Such an assessment could provide a basis for broader stakeholder discussion of OBO's human capital needs and potential prioritization of activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: State concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2020, State/OBO was working with the Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct an OBO-wide workforce analysis, with initial findings and recommendations planned for early 2020. We will continue to monitor State's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NSF Director of Human Resource Management should complete the development of an agency-wide workforce strategy for balancing the agency's use of IPA and VSEE rotators with permanent staff as part of NSF's current agency reform planning efforts or updates to its human capital operating plan. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation but, as of March 2020, had not completed its plans for implementing it. Specifically, in November 2018, NSF indicated that it planned to initiate an effort to help identify current and future workforce needs. NSF stated that this effort would include identifying specific competencies needed for the future and how different hiring authorities-including permanent and temporary appointments-can be used to meet those needs. In addition, the information gained from this effort would contribute to an agency-wide workforce strategy. We will continue to monitor NSF's efforts and provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The NSF Director of Human Resource Management should evaluate the contributions of the IPA and VSEE rotator programs toward NSF's human capital goals and the contributions the programs have made toward achieving programmatic results. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: National Science Foundation
Status: Open

Comments: NSF agreed with this recommendation but, as of March 2020, had not completed its plans for implementing it. In November 2018, indicated that the agency planned to build on existing reviews to evaluate the contributions of the rotator program towards advancing the progress of science. We will continue to monitor NSF's efforts and provide updated information when it becomes available.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should establish an achievable wait-time goal for the consolidated community care program that VA plans to implement that will permit VHA to monitor whether veterans are receiving VA community care within time frames that are comparable to the amount of time they would otherwise wait to receive care at VHA medical facilities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) agreed with our recommendation and stated in March 2020 that it is taking steps to establish a wait-time goal for the new consolidated community care program-the Veterans Community Care Program. Actions include updating VHA's current directives and the implementation of the HealthShare Referral Manager, a software system that will provide VHA the capability to monitor wait times.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should design an appointment scheduling process for the consolidated community care program that VA plans to implement that sets forth time frames within which (1) veterans' referrals must be processed, (2) veterans' appointments must be scheduled, and (3) veterans' appointments must occur, which are consistent with the wait-time goal VHA has established for the program. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) agreed with our recommendation and stated in March 2020 that it is taking steps to design an appointment scheduling process for the new consolidated community care program-the Veterans Community Care Program. This includes actions to develop a wait-time goal, and the development and review of VHA's new community care directive.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should establish a mechanism that will allow VHA to systematically monitor the average number of days it takes for VAMCs to prepare referrals, for VAMCs or TPAs to schedule veterans' appointments, and for veterans' appointments to occur, under the consolidated community care program that VA plans to implement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) agreed with our recommendation and stated in March 2020 that it is taking steps to establish a mechanism to monitor appointment timeliness for the new consolidated community care program-the Veterans Community Care Program. This includes the implementation of the HealthShare Referral Manager, a software system that will allow VHA to measure timeliness of appointment scheduling actions, development of a wait-time goal, review of current VHA directives, and the development of reports that can be used by VA medical centers to monitor appointment scheduling timeliness.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should implement a mechanism to prevent veterans' clinically indicated dates from being modified by individuals other than VHA clinicians when veterans are referred to the consolidated community care program that VA plans to implement. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) agreed with our recommendation and stated that it is taking steps to implement a mechanism to prevent veterans' clinically indicated dates (CID) from being modified by VHA staff other than VHA providers for the new consolidated community care program-the Veterans Community Care Program. Specifically, VHA developed the HealthShare Referral Manager (HSRM), a software system for VA medical center (VAMC) staff to use to manage VCCP referrals, including creating authorizations and scheduling veteran appointments with community providers. VHA deployed the HSRM at all VAMCs as of June 24, 2019, and according to VHA officials, the system was fully implemented as of December 31, 2019. In March 2020, VHA provided documentation that shows (1) the VHA clinician populates the CID field when they create the referral in VA's electronic medical record system, (2) when the referral is forwarded to HSRM for referral management and appointment scheduling by VAMC staff, the CID field in HSRM is auto-populated based on the CID in VA's electronic medical record system, and (3) the auto-populated CID field in HSRM cannot be edited. However, under VA's current scheduling process, some VHA staff can still edit the referral after the VHA provider enters the CID and before it is sent to the HSRM for scheduling. VHA will need to take action to ensure this part of the process has protections to ensure veterans' CIDs aren't modified after being entered by the VHA provider.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should implement a mechanism to separate clinically urgent referrals and authorizations from those for which the VAMC or the TPA has decided to expedite appointment scheduling for administrative reasons. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) did not concur with this recommendation, and states a mechanism is no longer needed as VA medical center staff are responsible for appointment scheduling under the new consolidated community care program, the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP), not staff from third-party administrators. However, we believe this recommendation is still relevant, and in July 2020 we asked VHA for evidence to show that VA medical center staff, when scheduling VCCP appointments, are not changing routine referrals to an urgent status to expedite appointment scheduling in cases of delays.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should (1) establish oversight mechanisms to ensure that VHA is collecting reliable data on the reasons that VAMC or TPA staff are unsuccessful in scheduling veterans' appointments through the consolidated community care program VA plans to implement, and (2) demonstrate that it has corrected any identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) agreed with our recommendation and stated in March 2020 that it is taking steps to establish an oversight mechanism to ensure VHA is collecting reliable data in cases where staff are unsuccessful in scheduling veterans' appointments for the new consolidated community care program-the Veterans Community Care Program. This includes actions to implement the HealthShare Referral Manager, a software system that will allow VHA to produce reports on reasons for unsuccessful scheduling attempts, development of a community care directive, and an analysis of the reasons behind unsuccessful scheduling.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the contracts for the consolidated community care program VA plans to implement include performance metrics that will allow VHA to monitor average driving times between veterans' homes and the practice locations of community providers that participate in the TPAs' networks. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration agreed with this recommendation, and as of March 2020, reported that it included performance metrics related to drive times in its contracts for the new third-party administrators in Regions 1-4 of the new Community Care Network under the Veterans Community Care Program. The contracts for Regions 5 and 6 have not been awarded yet.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should issue a comprehensive policy directive and operations manual for the consolidated community care program VA plans to implement and ensure that these documents are reviewed and updated in a timely manner after any significant changes to the program occur. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Under Secretary for Health
Status: Open

Comments: The Veterans Health Administration agreed in principle with this recommendation, and stated that it has taken action to develop a new community care directive, which was under technical review as of March 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop guidance on how agencies test to identify improper payments, such as using a risk-based approach to help ensure that key risks of improper payments, such as eligibility, are addressed through testing processes. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: OMB partially concurred with this recommendation. On July 31, 2019, we met with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). At the meeting, OMB officials indicated that OMB's position has not changed since the issuance of the GAO report and what OMB had already communicated to GAO at the exit conference. Specifically, OMB stated that it should not have to develop more specific guidance as each program and activity has its own risks. Instead, inspectors general are better equipped and positioned to review the sampling and estimation plans as part of their annual Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 compliance audits and that agencies, their statisticians, and inspectors general should work out the best testing procedures for their agencies. We continue to believe that OMB could provide suggestions during OMB's annual town meeting related to improper payments for areas that inspectors general may consider. Further, although we agree that programs and activities may face different risks of improper payment, we continue to believe that guidance from OMB on how agencies test to identify improper payments, such as using a risk-based approach, could help ensure that agencies address the specific risks they identify when developing improper payment estimates. In February 2020, OMB informed us that it had no status updates to provide at this time. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should develop guidance clarifying the appropriate treatment of nonresponse cases during improper payment testing. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: OMB concurred with this recommendation. On July 31, 2019, we met with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). At the meeting, OMB officials indicated that OMB's position has not changed since the issuance of the GAO report and what OMB had already communicated to GAO at the exit conference. At the meeting, OMB officials stated that OMB will "consider" updating guidance in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, to direct agencies to treat nonresponse cases such as improper payments and to include a new category for tracking such cases but only after assessing the impact such guidance would have on the agencies testing and reporting of improper payments. OMB has not taken action to develop this guidance. In February 2020, OMB informed us that it had no status updates to provide at this time. We will continue to monitor agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OPM should assess the processes to estimate Retirement improper payments to determine whether they effectively address key risks of improper payments--including eligibility and whether older claims face different risks of improper payments than new claims--and take steps to update the processes to incorporate key risks that are not currently addressed. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Office of Personnel Management
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) partially concurred with this recommendation. Prior to 2006, the improper payment estimate sampling methodology used by OPM included both new and old adjudicated claims. After analyzing several years of data using this methodology, OPM found that including older claims in the sample could result in claimant's records being sampled multiple times. In addition, OPM also found that the variance in the number of errors detected in new claims versus old claims was very low. OPM also looked at the resources used in performing the audit of old and new claims and based on these factors, management determined that it was not an efficient use of resources to include both old and new claims in the review. The methodology was updated to make the process more efficient. By using new claims only, OPM was able to provide feedback to program managers more timely. As a result, management can address issues negatively impacting the improper payment rate and prevent improper payments promptly. OPM agrees with the intent of our recommendation; however, OPM does not agree with our recommendation regarding a risk assessment on eligibility. Eligibility is determined before annuity/survivor benefits are fully adjudicated. As part of its correction plan, OPM stated that it will conduct an audit of older claims to determine if there are different risks to new claims. In February 2020, OPM indicated that it is currently in the process of pulling/gathering the cases that should be in the universe of this audit. OPM plans to complete the corrective action by end of 4th quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The VHA Undersecretary for Health should provide updated guidance to VAMCs on the governance of the patient advocacy program, including clear definitions of reporting lines. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) partnered with VA's Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) to better understand the current state of patient advocacy services in VHA, focusing on position descriptions, grade levels, and reporting structures. VA medical center staff completed questionnaires about the patient advocacy program in January 2019 and VHA analyzed the results. CHOIR officials are conducting site visits to interview key staff directly to identify the benefits and opportunities for improvements with patient advocacy services, including reporting structure. Upon completion of site visits to validate questionnaire findings, CHOIR will present their final recommendations to OPA. OPA will develop reporting structure guidance and work with workforce management and VHA senior leaders to communicate and implement the guidance. VHA's target completion for these efforts is December 2019.

Recommendation: The VHA Undersecretary for Health should assess and provide guidance to VAMCs on appropriately staffing the patient advocacy program, including guidance on how to determine the appropriate number and type of staff. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) partnered with VA's Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) and VHA's Workforce Management to develop an evidence-based patient advocacy staffing model that accounts for facility size, complexity and geographic region. A set of questions was distributed to all VAMCs in December 2018. Responses to these questions have been analyzed by CHOIR, and on-site interviews at select facilities are in progress to validate the report findings. VHA's Workforce Management is working with CHOIR and OPA to use the results to develop a recommended and validated staffing model. This guidance will also be incorporated in the future revision of the VHA directive. The target completion of these efforts is December 2019.

Recommendation: The VHA Undersecretary for Health should monitor PATS data-entry practices to ensure all complaints are entered into PATS and that veterans' feedback is coded consistently. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation and has provided regular updates on its progress in implementing it. As of April 2019, VHA's Office of Patient Advocacy (OPA) receives a weekly report from both the Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS) and PATS-Replacement (PATS-R) Systems reporting on the number of new cases entered at every VA medical center (VAMC). With development of the PATS-R web-based tool, OPA, the Veterans Experience Office and the PATS-R developers have conducted a review of existing codes and are currently working with various VHA program offices to standardize codes across various data systems. VA plans to develop an auditing toolkit to ensure standardized, timely documentation of complaints, including accurate coding within PATS. The target completion date for these efforts is December 2019.

Recommendation: Regarding the National 911 Program, the Administrator of NHTSA should develop specific program goals and performance measures related to NG911 implementation. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) indicated that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working to implement the recommendation and plans to complete implementation in July 2020. When we confirm what actions NHTSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: Regarding the National 911 Program, the Administrator of NHTSA should, in collaboration with the appropriate federal agencies, determine roles and responsibilities of federal agencies participating in the National NG911 Roadmap initiative in order to carry out the national-level tasks over which each agency has jurisdiction. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) indicated that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working to implement the recommendation and plans to complete implementation in July 2020. When we confirm what actions NHTSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: Regarding the National 911 Program, the Administrator of NHTSA should develop an implementation plan to support the completion of the National NG911 Roadmap's national-level tasks. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: In October 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) indicated that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working to implement the recommendation and plans to complete implementation in July 2020. When we confirm what actions NHTSA has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess options for improving enforcement of late W-2 filing penalties, for example, by mailing notices before the next filing deadline. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of October 2019, IRS continues to disagree with this recommendation. IRS stated that it does not have all the information required for calculating and sending late penalty notifications prior to the beginning of the next filing season. However, in its response, IRS did not consider other options that could be available prior to finalizing penalty calculations, such as communicating with the employers earlier in the process. As noted in our report, quickly responding to employers that filed late increases the potential for compliance, thereby increasing the availability of W-2 data for systemic verification to detect and prevent fraud and noncompliance. We continue to believe that assessing the options for improving enforcement of late W-2 filing penalties, such as through earlier communication, would help IRS identify potential opportunities to encourage compliance with the W-2 filing deadline and verify more wage information before releasing refunds. We will continue to discuss options with IRS regarding this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop an evaluation plan to fully assess the benefits and costs, including taxpayer burden, of modifying the February 15 refund hold, and determine how this effort informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and fraud risk management. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has assessed the benefits of modifying the refund hold, but it has not assessed the costs, as GAO recommended in January 2018. In November 2018, IRS provided its assessment of the February 15 refund hold. In it, IRS reiterated its findings regarding the benefits of the refund hold. These benefits included potential savings if IRS modified the hold to include all taxpayers, extended the hold to a later date when more W-2 data are available, or made both changes. However, IRS did not include any assessment of costs to achieve these potential savings, such as the costs for IRS to review any additional returns that would be identified under a modified refund hold. It did not assess taxpayer burden, either. IRS also did not determine how the February 15 refund hold informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and its fraud risk management strategy. In January 2019, IRS took actions to hold more returns beyond the February 15 refund hold date using a risk-based selection method. Nevertheless, without a complete assessment of the benefits and costs, including taxpayer burden, IRS is making a decision based upon incomplete information. Further, if Congress or Treasury considered making any changes, they too would have incomplete information on which to direct IRS's actions.

Recommendation: Based on the benefits and costs assessment in Recommendation 3, the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should use IRS's existing authority to modify the refund hold such that it minimizes the risk of releasing fraudulent or noncompliant refunds. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: As of January 2020, IRS has taken actions consistent with our recommendations by modifying its filters to hold more returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) beyond the February 15 refund hold date based on a risk-based selection method. In addition, in May 2019, IRS officials told us they are making similar changes for the 2020 filing season to hold more high-risk returns not claiming EITC or ACTC until W-2 data are available. This action, if taken, would be consistent with our recommendations. In 2018, IRS assessed the benefits of modifying the refund hold, however, it did not assess or document the costs, including taxpayer burden, or determine how the February 15 refund hold informs IRS's overall compliance strategy for refundable tax credits and its fraud risk management strategy. Completing these actions, along with the planned modifications, would fully address our recommendations, which would enable IRS to make decisions based on completed information.

Recommendation: The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess the benefits and costs of additional uses and applications of W-2 data for pre-refund compliance checks, such as addressing underreporting, employment fraud, and other fraud or noncompliance before issuing refunds. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: In September 2019, IRS provided results for a pilot encouraging voluntary compliance through expanded systemic verification using W-2 data. In the pilot, IRS sent soft notices to a targeted group of taxpayers whose returns under-reported income compared to W-2 data. In its analysis, IRS reported that some taxpayers voluntarily amended their returns after receiving the soft notice, resulting in a net increase in tax revenue. If IRS determines that the benefits outweigh the costs of adopting this practice based on the pilot results, or assesses additional options to address other fraud and noncompliance before issuing refunds, it would satisfy our recommendation. We will continue to follow IRS's progress on the pilot and its results.

Recommendation: Based on the assessment in Recommendation 5, the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue should implement any identified changes to improve pre-refund compliance checks. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: In September 2019, IRS provided an evaluation of a pilot it conducted during tax year 2019. In the pilot, IRS sent soft notices to a targeted group of taxpayers whose returns under-reported income compared to W-2 data. In its analysis, IRS reported that some taxpayers voluntarily amended their returns after receiving the soft notice, resulting in a net increase in tax revenue. IRS told us they intend to continue the pilot during tax year 2020. We will continue to follow IRS's progress on the pilot and its results.

Recommendation: To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD's annual program and budget review process, but adding that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds. We have since determined that the Department of the Army has estimated sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects, and plans to incorporate those costs into the out-year cost projections in the next budget submission. As of August 2020 the Air Force had not taken steps to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should continue to identify and report to Congress on the status of the top 10 high priority information technology programs and the extent to which USDS is involved in the programs, as was done in June 2015 and June 2016. In doing so, the Director should ensure that these reports are issued quarterly. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: We have been requesting periodic updates from OMB on actions it has taken to address the recommendation. As of April 2020, the agency did not have any updates.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that the Federal CIO is directly involved in the oversight of high priority programs. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: OMB has not taken actions to address this recommendation, stating that the Federal CIO is not typically involved with overseeing individual IT programs. However, we continue to believe it is important for OMB to take this action, as the results of past CIO-led reviews of troubled programs show that CIO oversight can have significant positive results, including producing significant savings. In December 2019, OMB stated that it had no ongoing or planned action to address the recommendation, noting that the recommendation represents a "fundamental disagreement" between OMB and GAO on the role of the Federal CIO in overseeing programs.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should continue to report on the status of USDS projects. In doing so, the Director should ensure that the reports are issued quarterly. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: We have been requesting periodic updates from OMB on actions it has taken to address the recommendation. As of April 2020, the agency did not have any updates.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should develop an evaluation plan for the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program in advance of issuing the notice of funding opportunity and ensure the program's evaluation plan clearly defines how all review teams should apply criteria, assess applications, and assign ratings to ensure that all applications are consistently reviewed. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In 2019, we found that DOT's evaluation plan for the INFRA 2017-2018 round of funding was not finalized prior to DOT's issuance of the notice of funding opportunity. In addition, we raised concerns with a lack of documentation outlining why members of the INFRA senior review team followed up with some applicants over others. DOT told us that, for the fiscal year 2020 INFRA awards, it plans to provide information in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and evaluation plan explaining under the circumstances under which additional information may be sought from applicants. DOT stated that it plans to complete these actions by March 2020. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should ensure all program applicants be notified in writing of the outcomes of the application selection process. For unsuccessful applicants, the notification should include a brief explanation of the decision. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT officials told us that they formally notified unsuccessful INFRA applicants of selection decisions via email and offered applicants the chance to schedule a debriefing with DOT officials. As of January 2020, we are assessing DOT's actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should require INFRA program teams document their decision-making rationale throughout all levels of review in the application selection process. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In 2019, we again raised concerns with the lack of documentation outlining DOT's rationale for its INFRA award decisions, as well as a lack of documentation regarding why members of the senior review team followed-up with some applicants over others. DOT stated that it would work to address these issues by updating its internal guidance. We will continue to monitor DOT's actions.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of CBP should identify and collect additional performance information on the impact of the ISF rule data, such as the identification of shipments containing contraband, to better evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program.

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

Comments: In March 2018, the CBP liaison informed GAO that offices within CBP are collaborating on a plan to assess additional performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program. On June 13, 2018, the CBP liaison stated that CBP staff continue to work on additional performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISF program and noted, in particular, are analyzing data to: (1) identify the number of unmanifested containers and determine how/if they were mitigated before arrival; (2) determine the number of times C-TPAT companies were identified and given targeting benefits, but did not receive the same treatment based on manifest information; and (3) identify the number of times potential terrorism matches were made against an ISF entities vs. the number of times not matched using the same manifest data. In March 2019, the CBP liaison stated that the new estimated completed date for this recommendation is the end of 2019. This recommendation will remain open until CBP's planned actions are completed and meet the intent of GAO's recommendation. In late February 2020, CBP liaison staff informed GAO that they are continuing to work on this recommendation, which they expect to complete by March 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure the transparency and accountability of USDA's selection of countries to receive in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should develop guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. As of February 2020, USDA has not developed guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help ensure that, consistent with the Bellmon amendment, the provision of U.S. in-kind food aid does not result in a substantial disincentive to, or interference with, domestic production or marketing in countries receiving in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify any potential negative effects, such as unusual changes in prices.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. USDA reported that proposed McGovern-Dole commodities are selected in coordination with the host governments in order to ensure they will not disrupt local production, markets, or food prices. However, as of February 2020, USDA has not taken action to monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify whether any potential negative effects have occurred, such as disruptions of local production or unusual changes in food prices. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help ensure that, consistent with the Bellmon amendment, the provision of U.S. in-kind food aid does not result in a substantial disincentive to, or interference with, domestic production or marketing in countries receiving in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should evaluate markets after the completion of McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress projects to determine whether markets were negatively affected during project implementation or after project completion.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation, and has reported actions to address the recommendation. GAO has requested documentation from USDA to confirm the actions taken. As of February 2020, USDA has not provided documentation confirming actions taken. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to counter both near and far term threats, consistent with its S&T framework, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to annually define the mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments for each military department.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not include a requirement for that office to annually define the mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments for each military department. In September 2019, the Office of the USD(R&E) released an updated science & technology strategy. While the updated strategy acknowledges the need to invest in both incremental and disruptive innovation, the strategy does not define what an appropriate investment mix should be. In lieu of a DOD-wide defined mix set by USD(R&E), in April 2019, the Air Force issued its own science and technology strategy that acknowledged the need for both incremental and disruptive investments and defined what that mix should be. However, recent Army (2019) and Navy (2017) science and technology strategies do not define those military departments' desired mixes of incremental and disruptive innovation investments. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to counter both near and far term threats, consistent with its S&T framework, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to annually assess whether that mix is achieved.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require that office to annually assess whether a desired mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments mix had been achieved. In December 2019, a senior official within the Office of the USD(R&E) stated that DOD's Communities of Interest -- a component of DOD's overarching Reliance 21 framework for science and technology coordination -- are required to plan short- and long-term research and assess that research for an appropriate mix and balance between research priorities. However, as of December 2019, USD(R&E) has not yet articulated what the appropriate mix of incremental and disruptive innovation investments should be for DOD. Therefore, it is unknown the criteria the Communities use to evaluate whether an appropriate balance exists between research priorities, including incremental and disruptive innovation. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to more comprehensively implement leading practices for managing science and technology programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to define, in policy or guidance, an S&T management framework that includes emphasizing greater use of existing flexibilities to more quickly initiate and discontinue projects to respond to the rapid pace of innovation.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require it to define a science and technology management framework that includes a process for discontinuing projects. In December 2019, a senior official with USD(R&E) reported that DOD has successfully implemented flexible funding vehicles such as the Defense Modernization Account that allowed funds to be rapidly moved to promising prototype projects within DOD's science and technology enterprise. In addition, this senior official reported an increased use of Other Transaction Authority by the Defense Innovation Unit and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Nonetheless, the Office of the USD(R&E) has not yet developed policy or guidance that military departments could use to emphasize greater use of existing flexibilities for initiating and discontinuing science and technology projects. Consequently, DOD's processes for initiating and terminating science and technology projects largely remain linked to the annual federal budgeting process, which is not responsive to the rapid pace of innovation. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to more comprehensively implement leading practices for managing science and technology programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to define, in policy or guidance, an S&T management framework that includes incorporating acquisition stakeholders into technology development programs to ensure they are relevant to customers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, roles, and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require that office to define, in policy or guidance, a science and technology framework that includes incorporating acquisition stakeholders into technology development programs. In December 2019, a senior official within the Office of the USD(R&E) reported that USD(R&E) actively partners with acquisition stakeholders to ensure technology development programs are relevant to customers. The official cited Rapid Prototyping Programs (RPPs), Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTDs), and Emerging Capability Technology Development (ECTD) programs as examples where management frameworks in which technology managers actively partner with (1) operational managers from the Combatant Commands or military departments and (2) technology transition managers from the military departments to ensure programs are relevant to customers. However, these efforts are narrow in scope and do not constitute the majority of science and technology investments DOD makes. In addition, the senior official reported that the Army and the Air Force are taking steps to incorporate and integrate acquisition stakeholders into their science and technology projects, but these efforts are in their infancy. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOD is positioned to more comprehensively implement leading practices for managing science and technology programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to define, in policy or guidance, an S&T management framework that includes promoting advanced prototyping of disruptive technologies within the labs so the S&T community can prove these technologies work to generate demand from future acquisition programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2017, the Department of Defense disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it would be premature to get ahead of the Secretary of Defense's final decisions on the role of the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) until that position is established, as required by law. In July 2018, the Department issued a memorandum finalizing the organizational structures, and roles and responsibilities for USD(R&E), but did not require it to define, in policy or guidance, a science and technology framework that includes promoting advanced prototyping of disruptive technologies within the labs. In December 2019, a senior official within the Office of the USD(R&E) reported that the Emerging Capability Technology Development (ECTD) program is one framework USD(R&E) uses to promote the prototyping of disruptive technologies within the labs. Under this framework, USD(R&E) co-funds and co-sponsors projects with Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and the military department laboratories. An integrated management team leads the evaluation and demonstration of technologies and connects technology managers with acquisition programs in the Combatant Commands and the military departments. The senior official further reported that USD(R&E) leverages Rapid Prototyping Funds (RPFs) and Rapid Prototyping Programs (RPPs) to promote and prove advanced demonstrations in military department laboratories. In the Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Congress directed USD(R&E) to report further on this issue to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by December 31, 2019.

Recommendation: To more fully address stakeholder concerns and help ensure FirstNet's resources reflect expected changes in responsibilities, FirstNet should request that the Public Safety Advisory Committee's Tribal Working Group fully explore tribal concerns and propose actions, as needed, to address those concerns.

Agency: Department of Commerce: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: First Responder Network Authority
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, FirstNet had taken some action in response to this recommendation but had not fully implemented it. Once we confirm that FirstNet has taken additional action, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the Armed Forces Sports Program and better determine whether the program is achieving its desired results, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that measure the desired outcomes for the program and, at a minimum, demonstrate linkage to the program's goals or mission, have a measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to demonstrate program performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that the Armed Forces Sports Council approved performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program at a council meeting held in April 2018. Officials said the approved performance measures went into effect in January 2019 in conjunction with the Armed Forces Sports Program's 2019 calendar year. Officials said that the baseline year for the performance measures is 2019 which they are currently collecting data for. Officials plan to provide an update on the program once they have collected and reviewed the 2019 baseline year performance measures. Additionally, officials said that OSD is working to update DOD Instruction 1330.04 to require the Armed Forces Sports Council to develop and implement performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program and review and track performance metrics annually. The DOD Instruction language has been updated and is currently pending review prior to the start of formal coordination.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should require Commissioners to review and approve, as appropriate, spending above the budget in a timely manner.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: On November 16, 2017, FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to adopt a self-enforcing budget mechanism for the Lifeline program. However, as of January 2020, FCC has not yet adopted a decision on this proposal.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should establish time frames to evaluate compliance plans and develop instructions with criteria for FCC reviewers how to evaluate these plans to meet Lifeline's program goals.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to the FCC as of January 28, 2020, the agency does not currently have a schedule to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should develop an enforcement strategy that details what violations lead to penalties and apply this as consistently as possible to all Lifeline providers to ensure consistent enforcement of program violations; the strategy should include a rationale and method for resource prioritization to help maximize the effectiveness of enforcement activities.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: FCC's enforcement must remain flexible in order to be responsive to the ever changing variants that Universal Service Fund violations may take. According to the FCC, as with all Commission matters, the Chairman may indicate agency priorities in terms of subject matter, but the Chairman does not dictate which cases the Enforcement Bureau pursues. The Office of the Chairman, in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau, has articulated priorities with respect to enforcement activities in the Lifeline area including, but not limited to: 1. Detection and elimination of willful attempts to defraud the Lifeline Program by claiming support subsidies for ineligible or fictitious subscribers. 2. Detection and elimination of unlawful claims for enhanced support for Tribal areas. 3. Detection and elimination of carrier collections of multiple support subsidies for duplicative subscribers, regardless of the source of duplications. 4. Detection and elimination of carrier failures to de-enroll inactive or ineligible subscribers. The Enforcement Bureau has focused its enforcement efforts in line with these priorities and has taken a number of actions since the publication of GAO-17-538.

Recommendation: To address our findings regarding the USF, the Chairman of FCC should take action to respond to USAC requests for guidance and address pending requests concerning USF contribution requirements to ensure the contribution factor is based on complete information and that USF pass-through charges are equitable.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to the FCC, the FCC is scheduled to complete implementing this recommendation in December 2021.

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 help FAA better manage and oversee its portfolio of R&D activities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA to take a more strategic approach to identifying research priorities across the agency, including developing guidance to identify long-term priorities and emerging issue areas, as part of FAA's portfolio development process.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, FAA issued a redesigned National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) for 2017/2018. In September 2019, FAA officials told GAO that the redesigned NARP helped the agency take a more strategic approach to identifying research priorities. FAA officials also said that the agency has taken actions to understand emerging aviation issues requiring FAA's research attention and those emerging issues will be incorporated into future plans. In June 2020, FAA officials told us that they are developing guidance--to be finalized by December 2020--to ensure that future NARPs continue to take a strategic approach. GAO will review FAA's actions to implement the recommendation once the guidance is completed.

Recommendation: To help FAA better manage and oversee its portfolio of R&D activities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA to develop guidance to ensure that future National Aviation Research Plans (NARP) and R&D Annual Reviews meet statutory requirements to the extent practicable, including (a) The NARP lists activities that are carried under cooperative agreements. (b) The NARP describes the rationale for the prioritized research programs. (c) The NARP identifies how resources were allocated for long-term and near-term research. (d) The NARP identifies REDAC recommendations that are accepted, not accepted, and the reasons for non-acceptance. (e) The NARP provides a detailed description of technology transfer to government, industry, and academia. (f) The Annual Review describes new technologies developed and the dissemination of research results to the private sector. (g) The Annual Review allows a comparison to the NARP. (h) The Annual Review is prepared and presented in accordance with agency performance reporting requirements.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, FAA issued a redesigned the National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) to include, among other things, information required by statue. In June 2020, FAA officials told us that they redesigned the R&D Annual Review in 2019 to also address the statutory requirements. The officials said that they are also in the process of revising guidance that the agency uses to develop the NARP and R&D Annual Review to ensure that future documents meet statutory requirements. FAA plans to finalize the guidance by December 2020. GAO will review FAA's actions to implement the recommendation once FAA provides GAO the redesigned R&D Annual Review and once guidance for both the NARP and R&D Annual Review are completed.

Recommendation: To improve RUS's management of the Infrastructure Program, Broadband Program, and Community Connect by more closely following leading practices for broadband loan- and grant-program management, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct RUS to establish and implement procedures to conduct periodic evaluations of completed grant projects to determine the outcomes associated with these projects, and analyze the information gained to assess if any programmatic changes are needed to improve the Community Connect program.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 22, 2020, USDA has not provided an update regarding its plans to implement staff procedures for conducting periodic evaluations of completed grant projects to measure the success of meeting the program goals. Once RUS provides an update regarding what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve RUS's management of the Infrastructure Program, Broadband Program, and Community Connect by more closely following leading practices for broadband loan- and grant-program management, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct RUS to establish a timeline for implementing a centralized internal system for staff to obtain relevant and timely program data for use in managing and monitoring loans and grant awards.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 22, 2020, RUS has not provided an update on how it will more efficiently manage and monitor RUS loan and grant awards. Once RUS provides an update regarding what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To improve RUS's management of the Infrastructure Program, Broadband Program, and Community Connect by more closely following leading practices for broadband loan- and grant-program management, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct RUS to develop, update, and maintain complete written policies and procedures for RUS's programs as a way to retain and communicate organizational knowledge internally among agency staff. RUS should determine the critical documentation that should be created or updated, including considering documentation such as loan-application review guidance and employee manuals for each of the three programs.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 22, 2020, RUS has not provided an update on how it plans to identify and prioritize critical manuals and instructions that will need to be developed or updated and formulate work plans to develop or update each of them. Once RUS provides an update regarding what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To mitigate the risk of poor acquisition outcomes and strengthen the department's investment decisions, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Undersecretary for Management to update the acquisition policy to require that major acquisition programs' technical requirements are well defined and key technical reviews are conducted prior to approving programs to initiate product development and establishing Acquisition Program Baselines, in accordance with acquisition best practices.

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 initiate a study to assess how to better align its processes for technical reviews and acquisition decisions. Upon completion of the study, DHS updated its acquisition policy instruction in May 2019, which adjusted the acquisition life cycle. Specifically, the updated instruction requires programs to conduct key technical reviews--including a preliminary design review--prior to establishing the program's Acquisition Program Baseline. As of July 2020, DHS was in the process of updating the related policies and guidance for its Systems Engineering Life Cycle, which govern the department's technical reviews. GAO will review these policies and guidance once complete to confirm alignment with the changes made to the acquisition management instruction and will monitor DHS's implementation of its new acquisition life cycle to ensure the department's actions meet the intent of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the reliability and usefulness of program evaluations for agency program and budget decisions, the Chief Executive Officer of MCC, the Administrator of USAID, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in cooperation with State's Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and Health Diplomacy) should each develop a plan for improving the quality of evaluations for the programs included in our review, focusing on areas where our analysis has shown the largest areas for potential improvement.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In response to the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FATAA), the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) - Food Assistance Division (FAD) updated its Monitoring and Evaluation policy in February 2019. In addition, in May 2019, USDA provided GAO with a draft evaluation quality checklist (EQC) that the FAS - FAD will use to review draft evaluations. The checklist includes specific questions about the evaluation's design, methodology, findings, and conclusions, among other items. USDA FAS-FAD indicated that the criteria used in the checklist were developed in alignment with our report, the quality checklist developed for an assessment of USAID evaluations, and its own internal criteria. As of July 2019, the EQC was in internal clearance. In November 2019, USDA stated that it was piloting a draft of the EQC, however, a re-organization within USDA had affected the timetable for implementing it. USDA stated that it would wait to finalize the EQC until it was able to potentially adjust it to reflect any new duties or priorities under the agency re-organization. We will continue to follow-up with USDA FAS-FAD to determine whether the checklist has been finalized and implemented.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the evaluation findings reach their intended audiences and are available to facilitate incorporating lessons learned into future program design or budget decisions, the Chief Executive Officer of MCC should adjust MCC evaluation practices to make evaluation reports available within the timeframe required by MCC guidance.

Agency: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: MCC concurred with the recommendation but noted that its then-forthcoming revised policy on monitoring and evaluation would state that "MCC expects to make each interim and final evaluation report publicly available as soon as practical after receiving the draft report." This revised guidance did not set a specific time frame for the reviews. In a letter provided to GAO in May 2017, MCC stated that it had initiated a re-design of its evaluation monitoring information system to provide MCC with detailed timelines of each component of the evaluation review and publication process. MCC provided additional information regarding actions taken in follow-up to our recommendations in April 2018. In December 2018, MCC provided GAO with a list of evaluation reports that had been released in calendar years 2017 and 2018. Of the 18 reports that were released in 2017 and 2018, 9 were released in six or fewer months after the date of the report and 9 were released more than six months after the date of the report. These review times represented only a modest improvement over what we found at the time of our report. In our report, we found that 6 of the 16 reports we examined were released within six months of MCC receiving the report, and 10 were released more than six months after MCC received the report. We requested an updated list of evaluation reports from MCC in January 2020 and will continue to review the timelines for release of reports.

Recommendation: To better ensure that the evaluation findings reach their intended audiences and are available to facilitate incorporating lessons learned into future program design or budget decisions, the Secretary of Agriculture should implement guidance and procedures for making FAS evaluations available online and searchable on a single website that can be accessed by the general public.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2019, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) - Food Assistance Division (FAD)'s updated Monitoring and Evaluation policy required that all final versions of USDA evaluation reports be made publicly available on the FAS website and that evaluators provide a copy of the evaluation reports that is free of personally identifiable and proprietary information. As of May 2019, USDA has published seven non-sensitive evaluations on the publicly available Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) website. As of July 2019, FAS was drafting internal standard operating procedures (SOPs) for making future and past evaluations publicly available on the DEC. In November 2019, USDA stated that it was piloting a draft of the SOPs, however, a re-organization within USDA had affected the timetable for implementing them. USDA stated that it would wait to finalize the SOPs until it was able to potentially adjust them to reflect any new duties or priorities under the agency re-organization. We will continue to follow-up with USDA FAS-FAD to determine whether the SOPs have been finalized and implemented.

Recommendation: Given DOT's new discretionary grant programs and similar challenges we have found with previous DOT programs, the Secretary of Transportation should issue a directive that governs department-wide and modal administration discretionary grant programs. Such a directive should include requirements to: (1) develop a plan for evaluating project proposals in advance of issuing a notice of funding availability that defines the stages of the process, including how the process will be overseen to ensure a consistent review of applications; (2) document key decisions, including the reason for any rating changes and the officials responsible for those changes, and how high-level concerns raised during the process were addressed; and (3) align stated program purpose and policy priorities with the evaluation and selection process.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and, in March 2019, issued a memo directing secretarial offices and operating administrations involved in awarding discretionary grants to implement our recommendations and to include them in their policies and procedures. In June 2019, we reported that, due to a number of issues, it is unclear how this action will address our recommendation. For example, we found that the memo was essentially limited to a repetition of our recommendation and that DOT did not take steps to ensure that the various affected offices consistently interpret and implement the recommendation. DOT officials told us they wanted to provide the affected offices flexibility to implement the recommendation, but that the Department would assess the need for additional guidance based on revisions to its Financial Assistance Guidance Manual. DOT completed these revisions effective January 2020, and all affected offices are expected to complete developing their policies and procedures by May 2020. We will continue to monitor the Department's actions and assess the extent to which they address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To determine whether CSA interventions influence motor carrier safety performance, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to identify and implement, as appropriate, methods to evaluate the effectiveness of individual intervention types or common intervention patterns to obtain more complete, appropriate, and accurate information on the effectiveness of interventions in improving motor carrier safety performance. In identifying and implementing appropriate methods, FMCSA should incorporate accepted practices for designing program effectiveness evaluations, including practices that would enable FMCSA to more confidently attribute changes in carriers' safety behavior to CSA interventions.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: FMCSA has reviewed the methodology for its effectiveness model and identified many of the same limitations GAO discussed in its report. FMCSA also identified several approaches to address these limitations, including modifying its model to measure individual intervention types. However, as of July 2020, FMCSA had not implemented any of its proposed approaches.

Recommendation: To enable FMCSA management to monitor the agency's progress in achieving its effectiveness and efficiency outcomes for CSA interventions and balance priorities, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FMCSA Administrator to establish and use performance measures to regularly monitor progress toward both FMCSA's effectiveness outcome and its efficiency outcome.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) plans to establish an inventory of effectiveness and efficiency measures and monitor performance on an ongoing basis. FMCSA is working to modify its model to measure the effectiveness of individual intervention types. However, as of July 2020, it had not implemented any of its proposed modifications.

Recommendation: To improve the management of DOD's credentialing program and better determine whether the program is achieving its desired results, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement program performance measures that include key attributes, such as a baseline and goals, that can be used to assess performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with our recommendation to develop and implement performance measures for its credentialing program. In its response to the recommendation, DOD stated that servicemembers are not required to earn credentials and more than half of the credentials earned by servicemembers are voluntary. Therefore, establishing criteria that might create an incentive to force servicemembers into earning voluntary credentials would be counterproductive. DOD also stated that a basic reporting system is in place that captures credential attainment and associated costs that provides basic information to gauge the program's performance. As of April 2020, the department still does not plan to develop performance measures for the program.

Recommendation: To ensure that Field Collection program case selection processes support IRS's and the Collection program's mission, including applying tax laws with integrity and fairness to all, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop, document, and communicate Field Collection program and case selection objectives, including the role of fairness, in clear and measurable terms sufficient for use in internal control.

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and described actions being taken to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they were beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan and that Field Collection was chosen as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. In September 2020, IRS officials provided us draft program and case selection objectives and said they expected to complete actions to implement the recommendation in Fall 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that Field Collection program case selection processes support IRS's and the Collection program's mission, including applying tax laws with integrity and fairness to all, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop, document, and implement performance measures clearly linked to the Field Collection program and case selection objectives.

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and outlined planned actions to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they were beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan and that Field Collection was selected as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. In September 2020, IRS officials provided us draft program and case selection objectives and said they expected to complete actions to implement the recommendation in Fall 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that Field Collection program case selection processes support IRS's and the Collection program's mission, including applying tax laws with integrity and fairness to all, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should incorporate program and case selection objectives into existing risk management systems or use other approaches to identify and analyze potential risks to achieving those objectives so that Field Collection can establish risk tolerances and appropriate control procedures to address risks.

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and outlined planned actions to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they were beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan and that Field Collection was selected as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. Since program and case selection objectives are necessary before appropriate risk management systems can be established, in September 2020, IRS officials said they expected to complete actions to implement program and case selection objectives in Fall 2020 but provided no anticipated completion date for actions to identify and analyze potential risks to those objectives and related risk management actions.

Recommendation: To ensure that Field Collection program case selection processes support IRS's and the Collection program's mission, including applying tax laws with integrity and fairness to all, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop, document, and communicate control procedures guidance for group managers to exercise professional judgment in the Field Collection program case selection process to achieve fairness and other program and collection case selection objectives.

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and described actions it will take to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they are beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan. IRS selected Field Collection as one of the pilot programs for this initiative which would include actions to address this recommendation. In September 2020, IRS officials said they had revised the Internal Revenue Manual to guide group managers on elements to consider in selecting cases. We will update the status of IRS's actions to implement the recommendation after review of any documentation IRS provides.

Recommendation: To ensure that Field Collection program case selection processes support IRS's and the Collection program's mission, including applying tax laws with integrity and fairness to all, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop, document, and implement procedures to periodically monitor and assess the design and operational effectiveness of both automated and manual control procedures for collection case selection to assure their continued effectiveness in achieving program objectives.

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

Comments: IRS agreed with the recommendation and outlined planned actions to address it. In June 2019, IRS officials told us they are beginning an initiative designed to help identify a program's objectives in relationship to the IRS Strategic Plan. IRS selected Field Collection as one of the pilot programs for this initiative. According to IRS officials, this pilot effort is ongoing and includes consideration of how the agency will address this recommendation. In September 2020, we met with IRS officials to discuss the status of actions to implement this recommendation but no anticipated completion date was provided.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's awareness of how much O&M funding the department uses for construction projects to support contingency operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to track the universe and cost of ongoing and future contingency construction projects that are funded from O&M appropriations under section 2805 of Title 10, U.S. Code (unspecified minor military construction authority).

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's ability to quickly fund contingency construction projects that are not ideally suited to the current standard Military Construction and Operation and Maintenance processes and time frames and reduce reliance on funding approaches that pose risks regarding the appropriate use of funding, negative operational impacts, and unnecessary duplication, DOD should evaluate and improve the use of existing processes and authorities to the extent possible; determine whether additional authorities are needed to support urgent construction needs; and revise existing departmental processes or seek additional authorities, as appropriate.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to help ensure that DOD limits demands on available resources to those necessary to meet contingency construction project requirements and communicates those requirements effectively, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, direct the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a control activity for documenting level-of-construction determinations before the Army Corps of Engineers designs the projects and estimates their costs.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to ensure that DOD avoids constructing facilities that may be unneeded to support U.S. forces and to comprehensively document the results of its reviews of ongoing construction projects when changes in mission requirements occur, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Commander of CENTCOM to develop implementing guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve the awareness of the combatant and service component commands' responsibilities to record and share lessons learned and to ensure that important contingency-construction-related lessons are recorded, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Commander of CENTCOM to revise Central Command Regulation 415-1 or issue other guidance as appropriate to specifically detail the role of the combatant command and service component commands in recording contingency construction lessons learned from the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the Joint Lessons Learned Information System.

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.

Recommendation: In light of potential concerns regarding the appropriate use of funding raised by several of the examples identified in this report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to review these and, as appropriate, other construction projects in the contingency environment presenting similar circumstances to ensure that funds were properly used.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the certification of adequate incremental development, the Secretaries of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury should direct their CIOs to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' adequate use of incremental development, in accordance with OMB's guidance on the implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' use of incremental development. Specifically, in September 2020, HHS officials reported that they have established a draft policy and anticipate publishing the finalized guidance by March 2021. We will continue to evaluate HHS's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the certification of adequate incremental development, the Secretaries of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury should direct their CIOs to establish a department policy and process for the certification of major IT investments' adequate use of incremental development, in accordance with OMB's guidance on the implementation of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, an official from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) reported that the department had developed draft guidance to address our recommendation, but did not provide time frames for when the guidance would be finalized. Until the department establishes a CIO certification policy, Treasury will not be able to fully ensure adequate implement of, or benefit from, incremental development practices. We will continue to evaluate Treasury's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure 18F's performance, the Administrator of GSA should direct the Commissioner for the Technology Transformation Service to assess actual results for each performance measure.

Agency: General Services Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The General Services Administration (GSA) agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in a March 2020 written response, GSA stated that Technology Transformation Service (TTS) leadership will be briefed on the program's performance measures on a quarterly basis. We are following up with GSA to confirm that its TTS leadership has been briefed on the results on these performance measures. We will continue to evaluate GSA's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure performance, prioritize USDS's resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in agency digital service teams, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to ensure that all goals and associated performance measures are outcome-oriented and that performance measures have targets.

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in its December 2016 report to Congress, OMB developed three goals for U.S. Digital Service (USDS): (1) rethink how the federal government builds and buys digital services; (2) expand the use of common, platforms, services, and tools; and (3) bring top technical talent into public service. In addition, OMB established performance measures with targets for its third goal and for each of the program's major projects. However, OMB has not established performance measures for the first two USDS goals. Further, the program's third goal is not outcome-oriented. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that USDS established goals for and measured performance on each of the projects the program supports in its fall 2017 report to Congress. Although measuring performance on projects can provide USDS with valuable information, this effort does not address goals and performance measurement on the overall USDS program. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure performance, prioritize USDS's resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in agency digital service teams, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to assess actual results for each performance measure.

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. Specifically, in its December 2016 report to Congress, OMB assessed the results of performance measures for one of the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) program's goals--bring top technical talent into public service--and for each of the program's major projects. However, OMB has not established performance measures for the other two USDS goals--rethink how the federal government builds and buys digital services; and expand the use of common, platforms, services, and tools. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that USDS established goals for and measured performance on each of the projects the program supports in its fall 2017 report to Congress. As of July 2019, USDS has not publicly released any subsequent reports to Congress or additional information on its goals and performance measures. Although measuring performance on projects can provide USDS with valuable information, this effort does not address performance measurement on the overall USDS program. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To effectively measure performance, prioritize USDS's resources, and ensure that CIOs play an integral role in agency digital service teams, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to update USDS policy to clearly define the responsibilities and authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and the digital service teams and require existing agency digital service teams to address this policy. In doing so, the Federal Chief Information Officer should ensure that this policy is aligned with relevant federal law and OMB guidance on CIO responsibilities and authorities.

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

Comments: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) generally agreed with, and has begun to take steps to implement, this recommendation. In particular, OMB updated its digital service team policy to require that teams appropriately inform their chief information officers (CIO) regarding U.S. Digital Service (USDS) projects. However, the policy does not describe the responsibilities or authorities governing the relationships between CIOs and digital service teams. In May 2018, an USDS staff member stated that the program updated digital service team charters to address the role of agency CIOs. As of May 2020, USDS has yet to provide us with the updated digital service team charters. In May 2020, OMB stated that they would provide an update on the agency's efforts to address the recommendation by June 2020. We will continue to evaluate OMB's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address weaknesses in the department's financial management systems modernization efforts, the Secretary of HUD should direct the Chief Financial Officer to work with the Chief Information Officer in managing subsequent initiatives to define a high-level depiction of the IT systems anticipated in the future state, a description of the operations that must be performed and who must perform them, and an explanation of where and how the operations are to be carried out.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had collaborated through an IT technical assessment initiative, identifying four primary financial management modernization initiatives remaining from the New Core Program. In July 2020, HUD officials, including the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, provided a roadmap that defined a high-level depiction of the financial management systems anticipated in the future state. However, the department had not yet completed more detailed plans that (1) identify operations that must be performed and who must perform them and (2) explain where and how operations are to be carried out. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address weaknesses in the department's financial management systems modernization efforts, the Secretary of HUD should direct the Chief Financial Officer to work with the Chief Information Officer in managing subsequent initiatives to develop comprehensive plans for scope, schedule and cost.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization. As of July 2020, the department had begun taking action to address this recommendation. Specifically, HUD planned to integrate loan and property management into its current financial management shared service and had begun planning for how to modernize its budget formulation and cost accounting systems. For the budget formulation effort, HUD had developed high-level plans for the scope of the program, planned an implementation schedule, and estimated on the cost for implementation and operating and maintaining the system for two years. We will continue to monitor HUD's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address weaknesses in the department's financial management systems modernization efforts, the Secretary of HUD should direct the Chief Financial Officer to work with the Chief Information Officer in managing subsequent initiatives to ensure requirements are fully documented and traceable.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. In March 2017, the department reported that the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Information Officer intended to partner on future departmental financial management systems modernization efforts to fully document requirements and trace requirements to the functionality in the modernized system. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. As of July 2020, HUD was in the early phases of planning for modernization in these areas. According to officials from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the department intended to address this recommendation for budget formulation modernization by developing applicable plans and artifacts for managing requirements from the department's project planning and management framework. However, that effort has not yet started. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions.

Recommendation: The Secretary of HUD should also direct the Deputy Secretary to ensure that the Chief Information Officer takes action to improve IT governance control activities used for monitoring programs and identifying needed corrective actions, and strengthen investment oversight by improving coordination with stakeholders and alignment among IT modernization efforts.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on our draft report, HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but noted that it planned to improve management practices and IT governance for future modernization efforts. Since 2016, HUD has revised its IT governance boards, which provide oversight of all its IT investments, including financial management initiatives, several times. While the department has not yet completed those improvement efforts, HUD updated its project planning and management framework to tailor requirements and artifacts for different program types. According to an official from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, updates to the requirements for shared services projects incorporated lessons learned from the New Core program. In April 2019, HUD reported that the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Office of the Chief Financial Officer had identified a need to pursue financial management systems modernization in 4 areas previously identified for the New Core program. Officials from both offices have described improvements in their coordination and collaboration on efforts to plan for modernization. We intend to continue to follow up on HUD's actions to ensure that planned improvements to governance and oversight mechanisms are effectively implemented and institutionalized.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress and NASA a reliable estimate of program cost and schedule that are useful to support management and stakeholder decisions, the NASA Administrator should direct the Orion program to perform an updated JCL analysis including updating cost and schedule estimates in adherence with cost and schedule estimating best practices.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that the agency reviewed, in detail, the Orion integrated cost/schedule and risk analysis methodology and determined the rigor to be a sufficient basis for the agency commitments. In November 2019, Orion program officials told us that in response to a recent policy change, the program office will update its joint confidence level analysis when the program has its Key Decision Point D review. This review occurs before the program enters the system assembly integration and test, and launch phase and is not scheduled to occur until December 2020. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to provide evidence that it updated its joint confidence level analysis when the Orion program holds its Key Decision Point D review.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web-based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation. EPA also stated that its vision for grants management includes having grant recipients submit performance reports and other information to the agency through a web-based portal. The portal would incorporate capabilities such as key word searches to allow for easier access to performance report information. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, once EPA's new performance system is in place, to ensure that the Office of Water adopts software tools, as appropriate, to electronically transfer relevant data on program results from program-specific databases to EPA's national performance system.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will apply it, where appropriate and cost effective, to program-specific databases, not only the Office of Water databases. EPA noted that not all data from program-specific databases may be appropriate for direct electronic transfer to the national performance system; some individual grant data may need to be analyzed before being rolled up into national data. As of December 2018, EPA officials said that continued work on this recommendation is dependent upon EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer's deployment of a new performance tracking system and individual program funds for developing systems that interact with it. As of April 2020, GAO is following up with EPA on the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to clarify the factors project officers should consider when determining whether performance reports are consistent with EPA's environmental results directive.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to the implementation guidance for the Environmental Results Order (directive). In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing environmental results directive may be superseded or incorporated into a different policy as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to expand aspects of EPA's policy for certain categorical grants, specifically, the call for an explicit reference to the planned results in grantees' work plans and their projected time frames for completion, to all grants.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to existing policy. In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing policies may be superseded or incorporated into different policies as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: The EPA Administrator should direct OGD and program and regional offices, as appropriate, as part of EPA's ongoing streamlining initiatives and the development of a grantee portal, to incorporate built-in data quality controls for performance reports into the planned web-based portal based on EPA's environmental results directive.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation. However, EPA emphasized that identifying and deploying appropriate data quality controls is a long-term effort subject to budgetary considerations, completion of its new grants management system, and extensive collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. EPA officials said that the agency expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.

Recommendation: To improve DOE's ability to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of policies that call for all organizations, including contractors, to embrace a strong safety culture and create a work environment that encourages a questioning attitude by all employees, the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement an independent evaluation process for routinely and accurately measuring contractor employees' willingness to raise safety and other concerns without fear of retaliation. This process should ensure that an independent third party develops, conducts, and consistently applies the evaluation methodology--which should include safeguards that protect anonymity. The process should also enable DOE to oversee and ensure that appropriate corrective actions are taken in response to evaluation results.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. DOE has developed a plan to analyze tools utilized by site contractors to determine the viability of using the data to monitor the influence of work environment on employees' willingness to raise safety concerns. As of March 2020, DOE had completed assessments of safety culture sustainment tools and drafted a report. According to officials, the draft report is undergoing final review and officials anticipate issuing the report by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the organizational placement and practices of DOE- and contractor- provided Employee Concerns Programs (ECP) do not inhibit contractor employees from raising safety and other concerns, the Secretary of Energy should revise DOE's ECP order and guidance to (1) require that the organizational placement and practices of contractor ECP's do not compromise or impair their independence, (2) clarify the circumstances under which DOE's ECP is permitted to transfer and refer concerns to contractors, and notify or require approval of the contractor employee raising the concern, and (3) provide criteria for overseeing and evaluating the effectiveness and independence of contractor-provided ECPs.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. DOE issued its revised order on the employee concerns program (ECP) in January 2019. However, that order did not address all three issues raised in our recommendation. Specifically, the order states that it is a best practice for contractor ECP managers to report to a designated executive in the contractor management chain, but does not include information on concerns of independence. Additionally, there is instruction that ECP managers must assess programs and how often, but there is not specific criteria for overseeing and evaluating effectiveness or independence. As of May 2020, we are continuing to discuss these issues with DOE officials.

Recommendation: To help ensure that Congress has the information it needs as it considers whether or not to make permanent the enhanced whistleblower pilot program and that DOE has assurance that contractor employees have an effective mechanism to seek remedy for unlawful retaliation, the Secretary of Energy should fully evaluate the extent to which the pilot program has been implemented and whether its provisions will mitigate challenges associated with DOE's 708 program. This evaluation should include, at a minimum, an assessment of (1) contractors that have adopted the pilot program and the date they did so; (2) contractors that have not adopted the pilot program and an explanation of why not; (3) cases filed under the pilot program, if any; and (4) the pilot program's potential for mitigating challenges associated with the 708 program.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred in principle with the recommendation. In response, the Office of Hearings and Appeals conducted a review of the Part 708 program that addressed three of the four items identified in the recommendation. As of May 2020, we are continuing to work with DOE on whether or how it plans to assess the contractors that have adopted the pilot program and the date they did so.

Recommendation: To help improve DOE's ability to take enforcement action against unlawful retaliation when appropriate and take action against contractors that create a chilled work environment, the Secretary of Energy should revise DOE's Integrated Safety Management policy and guidance to clarify what constitutes evidence of a chilled work environment and define the appropriate steps DOE should take to hold contractors accountable for creating a chilled work environment.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. In January 2018, DOE issued a revision to DOE Policy 450.4A. The revised policy states that organizations should foster a culture that allows employees to "feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation...and supporting a questioning attitude concerning safety by all employees." However, the policy does not define the appropriate steps DOE should take to hold contractors accountable for creating a chilled work environment. As of May 2020, we are continuing to work with DOE to determine whether they plan to make additional changes to the policy to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: Because some quantities of radioactive materials are potentially dangerous to human health if not properly handled, NRC should take action to better track and secure these materials and verify the legitimacy of the licenses for those who seek to possess them. Specifically, the NRC should take the steps needed to include category 3 sources in the National Source Tracking System and add agreement state category 3 licenses to the Web-based Licensing System as quickly as reasonably possible.

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In October 2016, NRC issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) "Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source Accountability," (SRM-COMJMB-16-0001) and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and accountability for category 3 sources. Among other things, this re-evaluation was expected to consider GAO's recommendations. In August 2017, NRC staff completed its analysis and provided recommendations to the NRC Commissioners. (Most of this analysis is available on NRC's website.) In its analysis, the NRC staff recommended not including category 3 sources in the National Source Tracking System. They also recommended not adding agreement state category 3 licenses to the Web-based Licensing System. As of January 2020, the NRC Commissioners have yet to take action on the staff analysis.

Recommendation: Because some quantities of radioactive materials are potentially dangerous to human health if not properly handled, NRC should take action to better track and secure these materials and verify the legitimacy of the licenses for those who seek to possess them. Specifically, the NRC should at least until such time that category 3 licenses can be verified using the License Verification System, require that transferors of category 3 quantities of radioactive materials confirm the validity of a would-be purchaser's radioactive materials license with the appropriate regulatory authority before transferring any category 3 quantities of licensed materials.

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In October 2016, NRC issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) "Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source Accountability," (SRM-COMJMB-16-0001) and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and accountability for category 3 sources. Among other things, this re-evaluation was expected to consider GAO's recommendations. In August 2017, NRC staff completed its analysis and provided recommendations to the NRC Commissioners. (Most of this analysis is available on NRC's website.) In its analysis, the NRC staff recommended not requiring transferors of category 3 quantities of radiological material to confirm the validity of licenses prior to transferring any category 3 quantities of these materials. As of January 2020, the NRC Commissioners have yet to take action on the staff analysis.

Recommendation: Because some quantities of radioactive materials are potentially dangerous to human health if not properly handled, NRC should take action to better track and secure these materials and verify the legitimacy of the licenses for those who seek to possess them. Specifically, the NRC should, as part of the ongoing efforts of NRC working groups meeting to develop enhancements to the prelicensing requirements for category 3 licenses, consider requiring that an on-site security review be conducted for all unknown applicants of category 3 licenses to verify that each applicant is prepared to implement the required security measures before taking possession of licensed radioactive materials.

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2016, NRC issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) "Proposed Staff Re-Evaluation of Category 3 Source Accountability," (SRM-COMJMB-16-0001) and directed NRC staff to take specific actions to evaluate whether it is necessary to revise NRC regulations or processes governing source protection and accountability for category 3 sources. Among other things, this re-evaluation will consider GAO's recommendations. In August 2017, NRC staff completed its analysis and provided recommendations to the NRC Commissioners. (Most of this analysis is available on NRC's website.) In its analysis, the NRC staff recommended requiring all safety and security equipment to be in place before granting a license to a previously unknown entity. This requirement would apply to all unknown entities applying for a radioactive material license regardless of the quantity of licensed material requested. If NRC took this action, it would fully address this recommendation. As of January 2020, the NRC Commissioners have yet to take action on the staff analysis.

Recommendation: To ensure Bureau and congressional confidence that the Bureau's budgeted contingencies are at appropriate levels, the Secretary of Commerce and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs should direct the Census Bureau to improve control over how risk and uncertainty are accounted for and communicated with the Bureau's decennial cost estimation process, such as by implementing and institutionalizing processes or methods for doing so with clear guidance.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. Specifically, we reported that the Bureau should ensure that its budget for contingencies for the 2020 Census reflect an accurate accounting of risk and uncertainty. In doing this, the Bureau should improve controls over risk and uncertainty in the cost estimate process, and institutionalize these controls by providing clear methods for their use. In July 2018, we completed a review of documentation to support the updated October 2017 cost estimate and found that the Bureau performed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on the estimate and appropriately added funding into the cost estimate to reflect inherent uncertainty and to account for specific risks. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to link specific risks to funds set aside in the $1.2 billion general risk contingency fund. Therefore, as of January 2020, this recommendation remains valid and should be addressed: that the Bureau properly account for risk in the 2020 Census cost estimate.

Recommendation: To help ensure vulnerable unaccompanied children receive child advocate services, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct ORR to develop a monitoring process that includes: (1) regularly reviewing referrals to the program contractor, including identifying which care providers in locations with a child advocate program do not make referrals; and (2) reviewing information on the children the program contractor determines it is unable to serve.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2016, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) reported that it was working with the child advocate contractor to develop standard operating procedures (SOP) to assign child advocates for children. In February 2020, ORR reported that the finalized SOPs are being implemented. Agency officials stated that they are reviewing program referrals through monthly reporting and calls with the contractor. ORR officials also said they allow the contractor to determine which unaccompanied children are provided a child advocate and there are insufficient resources to assign advocates to all children that are referred. In August 2020, ORR reported that the agency is in the process of developing a new case management system that will enhance its monitoring of the child advocate program, including the ability to analyze child advocate referral data. This system is expected to be fully operational in late 2021.

Recommendation: To help improve the management of MAIS programs, the Secretary of the Navy should direct the Common Aviation Command and Control System program manager to identify weaknesses in the requirements traceability process and take corrective actions to manage the traceability of requirements to the respective lower-level requirements, and periodically evaluate work products, including the requirements management plan, and update them in accordance with the requirements guidance.

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

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated in March 2016 that the Navy had corrected the data query issue that caused 11 requirements to be eliminated from the traceability matrix we reviewed. DOD also stated that the Navy had identified the weakness in the traceability process that led to 14 general requirements not being fully traced. However, as of June 2020, DOD had not provided us with documentation that supports that it identified the weakness in the requirements traceability process. It also had not demonstrated that the program office has updated its requirements management guidance to address the weakness it identified.

Recommendation: To better ensure that taxpayer funds are being used effectively, Congress should consider permanently rescinding any Treasury-deobligated excess MHA balances that Treasury does not move into the Hardest Hit Fund.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action identified, as of July 22, 2020. Congress has not yet taken any action to rescind excess MHA balances, as recommended in GAO's March 2016 report. According to Treasury, it took action on July 27, 2018, to deobligate $4.0 billion MHA program funds beyond the $2 billion that it had previously deobligated and transferred to the Troubled Asset Relief Program-funded Hardest Hit Fund in February 2016. As a result of Treasury's deobligated action, Congress now has the opportunity to rescind and use the funds for other priorities.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management of initiatives directed at increasing the recruitment and accessions of women into the officer corps, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the service Secretaries, to develop an oversight framework that includes or incorporates (consistent with applicable law): (1) Service-wide program goals for initiatives directed at female officers' recruitment, such as goals related to the composition of the applicant pool; (2) Performance measures linked to program goals; and (3) Resource allocations linked to program goals.

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.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management of initiatives directed at increasing the recruitment and accessions of women into the officer corps, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, in collaboration with the service Secretaries, to conduct evaluations for key recruitment initiatives to help ensure these initiatives are achieving their intended purpose.

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.

Recommendation: To ensure that resources are being efficiently applied to meet the National Guard counterdrug program's objectives, the Secretary of Defense should direct the National Guard Bureau in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats to subsequently collect and use performance information to help inform funding distribution decisions to state programs and to conduct oversight of the training offered by the counterdrug schools.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would collect and use performance information to evaluate the effectiveness of each state program to provide support and to meet its objectives. DOD also stated that it would take steps to assist states with any needed corrective-action plans. While the National Guard counterdrug program has begun collecting performance information in its annual assessments of state programs and counterdrug schools, it has not yet incorporated the information into its funding distribution decisions. In January 2020, DOD officials indicated that responsibility for implementing this recommendation was assigned to the Counterdrug Advisory Counsel and Threat Based Resourcing Model Target Team for action. They estimated a completion date of December 2020.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's use of portfolio management for its weapon system investments and ensure that its investment plans are affordable, strategy-driven, balance near- and long-term needs, and leverage efforts across the military services, as well as to provide a solid foundation for future portfolio management efforts at the enterprise-level, the Secretary of Defense should revise DOD Directive 7045.2 on Capability Portfolio Management in accordance with best practices and promote the development of better tools to enable more integrated portfolio reviews and analyses of weapon system investments. Key elements of this recommendation would include (1) designating the Deputy Secretary of Defense or some appropriate delegate responsibility for implementing the policy and overseeing portfolio management in DOD; (2) requiring annual enterprise-level portfolio reviews that incorporate key portfolio review elements, including information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes; (3) directing the Joint Staff, AT&L, and CAPE to collaborate on their data needs and develop a formal implementation plan for meeting those needs either by building on the database the Joint Staff is developing for its analysis or investing in new analytical tools; and (4) incorporating lessons learned from military service portfolio reviews and portfolio management activities, such as using multiple risk and funding scenarios to assess needs and re-evaluate priorities.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. DOD agreed with the need to further develop portfolio management tools, ensure access to authoritative data, and incorporate lessons learned by others performing portfolio management. However, DOD stated that other aspects of our recommendation were redundant to, and would conflict with other processes and activities in place to perform portfolio management. As of January 2020, DOD has taken steps to implement parts of this recommendation. In January 2019, responsibility for DOD Directive 7045.20 was transferred to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, which sponsored the directive when it was issued. This office began revising DOD Directive 7045.2 in summer 2019, and plans to update the directive by the end of fiscal year 2020. In addition, in October 2016 and September 2017, the Joint Staff informed GAO that they had been updating two of their databases on military capabilities and capability requirements to provide DOD with better analytical tools to support portfolio management. They also reported that they completed a crosscutting study in collaboration with the acquisition community to improve the information sharing and analytical tools for their capability requirements database. In July 2020, the Joint Staff completed an update one of these databases. Joint Staff officials said they anticipated the database update would increase speed and provide a better search engine to help the Joint Staff more effectively conduct portfolio reviews, assess potential redundancy, and collect and analyze the information needed prioritize capabilities across DOD. However, a Joint Staff official stated that it is too soon to tell if the Joint Staff has experienced any improvements with regard to portfolio management as a result of the update. DOD has not taken action on the other aspects of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's use of portfolio management for its weapon system investments and ensure that its investment plans are affordable, strategy-driven, balance near- and long-term needs, and leverage efforts across the military services, and to help ensure the military services' portfolio reviews are conducted regularly and effectively integrate information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget communities, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to update or develop policies that require them to conduct annual portfolio reviews that incorporate key portfolio review elements, including information from the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation. However, DOD did not indicate that it would take any action to address it. Instead, DOD responded that the services' budget processes and Office of the Secretary of Defense's review of the services' budgets meet the intent of our recommendation. Our report findings showed otherwise. As of July 2020, DOD has not taken any actions to implement this recommendation, but an ongoing update of the department's portfolio management guidance (DOD Directive 7045.20) could lead to further actions on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To inform decisions on any potential future iterations of the veterans' employment workshop, the Secretary of Labor should assess and report to Congress the extent to which further delivery of employment workshops to veterans and their spouses could fill a niche not fully served by existing federal programs. Such an assessment could involve collaboration with VA and other stakeholder organizations.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2019, DOL restated its assertion that the employment services most needed by veterans and spouses were already available to them through the state workforce system and should not be offered through another mechanism. DOL pointed to changes in the employment workshops under its Transition Assistance Program, though those changes do not inform the need for any additional services such as Off Base Transition Training workshops. Additionally, DOL noted that Section 502 of the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2016 called for a 5-year longitudinal study of veteran workforce services. DOL concluded a feasibility study in December 2018 and said it will produce a plan to conduct the 5-year longitudinal study, which will inform the extent to which further delivery of employment workshops to veterans and their spouses could fill a niche not fully served by existing federal programs. While completing the feasibility study and planning to conduct the longitudinal study are important steps, DOL has not yet completed that study, nor has it reported to Congress on the extent to which employment workshops might fill a niche not currently served by existing federal programs.

Recommendation: To better align program goals with agency missions and improve program administration and oversight, Congress should consider designating the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a joint administrator of the program responsible for oversight. As part of the deliberation, Congress also should direct HUD to estimate the costs to monitor and perform the additional oversight responsibilities, including a discussion of funding options.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation to give HUD an oversight role for LIHTC.

Recommendation: To help agencies decide whether to use ESPCs to consolidate federal data centers, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should document, for the purposes of scoring ESPCs, (1) what qualifies as energy-related savings and (2) the allowable proportion of energy and energy-related cost savings.

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

Comments: In July 2020, GAO requested information on the status of the recommendation. We will update the recommendation's status when information is received from OMB.

Recommendation: If Congress wishes to evaluate the effectiveness of the ITC and the PTC as incentives for the development of renewable utility-scale electricity generation projects as it considers proposals to extend the ITC or reauthorize the PTC, it should consider directing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to provide Congress with project-level data currently collected from taxpayers who claim the ITC in lieu of the PTC--such as the number of projects for which they are claiming the credit, the technology of the projects taking the credit, and the total generating capacity added--and make such data available for analysis. Additionally, take steps to collect and report the same data from all taxpayers claiming the ITC.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has not taken action on this matter as of June 11, 2020.

Recommendation: If Congress wishes to evaluate the effectiveness of the ITC and the PTC as incentives for the development of renewable utility-scale electricity generation projects as it considers proposals to extend the ITC or reauthorize the PTC, it should consider directing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to take steps to collect project-level data from taxpayers claiming the PTC--such as the number of projects for which they are claiming the credit, the technology of the projects taking the credit, and the total generating capacity--and make these data available for analysis.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has not taken action on this matter as of June 11, 2020.

Recommendation: To more accurately communicate DHS's funding plans for USCG's major acquisition programs, the Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure the funding plans presented to Congress in fiscal year 2015 are comprehensive and clearly account for all operations and maintenance funding DHS plans to allocate to each of the USCG's major acquisition programs.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurred with this recommendation and stated in their comments that the U.S. Coast Guard and the DHS Chief Financial Officer will develop a plan to address this recommendation by September 30, 2015, then work together to fully implement the plan. DHS estimated it would complete this effort March 31, 2016. However, the USCG encountered technical challenges during this process and was unable to implement the plan by that time. The U.S. Coast Guard has revised the estimated completion date and now anticipates it will be able to address this recommendation in fiscal year 2022. GAO will continue to assess the updated APBs as a part of its annual review of select DHS major acquisition programs to determine whether the department has addressed the recommendation.

Recommendation: The FCC should conduct a program evaluation to determine the extent to which the Lifeline program is efficiently and effectively reaching its performance goals of ensuring the availability of voice service for low-income Americans while minimizing the contribution burden on consumers and businesses.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In a 2016 Lifeline modernization order, which FCC adopted March 31, 2016, FCC instructed the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to hire an outside, independent third-party evaluator to complete a program evaluation of the modernized Lifeline program. FCC noted that the program evaluation would enable FCC and the public to have better information about the operation and effectiveness of the Lifeline program. Such an evaluation will likely address our recommendation. FCC's order stipulated that USAC must submit the evaluation's findings to FCC by December 2020. In July 2020, FCC officials told us the evaluation should be complete by October 2020. We will update the status of this recommendation after we receive additional information from FCC.

Recommendation: In addition to implementing our previous recommendations, to effectively implement key elements of the IRS information security program, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that control testing methodology and results fully meet the intent of the control objectives being tested.

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

Comments: During our audit of IRS's FY 2019 financial statements, , the agency submitted this recommendation for closure, but our testing determined it should remain open. Subsequently, IRS updated its anticipated closure date for the recommendation to July 2020. As part of our FY 2020 audit, we will continue to monitor IRS's progress in ensuring that its control testing methodology and results fully meet the intent of the control objectives being tested.

Recommendation: In addition to implementing our previous recommendations, to effectively implement key elements of the IRS information security program, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should update the remedial action verification process to ensure actions are fully implemented.

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

Comments: During the audit of IRS's FY 2019 financial statements, the agency submitted this recommendation for closure, but our testing determined that it should remain open. While IRS continued to make positive steps to address our recommendation, the agency's implementation of corrective actions did not fully address it. As part of our FY 2020 audit, we will continue to monitor IRS's progress in strengthening its remedial action verification process and ensuring its corrective actions are fully implemented.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to establish guidelines on what constitutes a "current" ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes; the types of programs, if any, that do not require ACAT designations; and whether the rules for identifying current MDAPs would be appropriate for ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. Since that time, DOD has taken some steps to implement this recommendation, but has not established department-wide guidelines as we recommended. Starting in September 2018, DOD began providing the military departments with a capability to identify ACAT II and III programs using the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system. The DAVE system is now considered to be a trusted source for ACAT II and III program data. DOD, in consultation with the military departments, established standard data elements for collection across ACAT II and III programs for inclusion in DAVE, but the military departments determine individually what constitutes a "current" program and the types of programs that do not require ACAT designations. As of August 2019, the Army and Navy have established guidance regarding what constitutes an active ACAT II or III program for reporting purposes. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with DOD components, to determine what metrics should be used and what data should be collected on ACAT II and III programs to measure cost and schedule performance; and whether the use of DAMIR and the MDAP selected acquisition report format may be appropriate for collecting data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it planned to review existing policy to see if revisions were needed. DOD has taken steps to implement this recommendation, but has yet to determine at the department level what metrics should be collected on ACAT II and III cost and schedule performance as we recommended. DOD determined that the use of the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment (DAVE) system, which is closely related to DAMIR, was appropriate to collect information on ACAT II and III programs and has made that system available to the military departments. Specifically, DOD provided the military departments with the capability to identify ACAT II and III programs in DAVE/DAMIR in September 2018 and made the DAVE/DAMIR Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) workflow tool for cost and schedule data collection available for components' use in April 2019. However, according to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the military departments are responsible for individually determining what cost and schedule metrics to collect and monitor for ACAT II and III programs. According to December 2018 Army guidance, the Army will require all ACAT II and III programs use DOD's APB tool by the end of fiscal year 2019 to capture baseline cost, schedule, and performance parameters for ACAT II and III programs. According to Navy officials, the Navy is developing an APB tool in its for a future update of its acquisition information system that will collect APB cost and schedule information for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to assess the reliability of data collected on ACAT II and III programs and work with PEOs to develop a strategy to improve procedures for the entry and maintenance of data.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back on the reliability of the data and plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Assistant Secretary of Defense directed the military departments and DOD components to assess the reliability of ACAT II and III data, but in July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on the results of the assessments reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Since that time, as of September 2018, DOD began providing standard data elements and definitions of those elements that it collects for ACAT II and III program identification in order to improve the consistency of data. However, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment stated that it is still up to the military departments to ensure the accuracy of data entered. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's ability to collect and maintain reliable data on its acquisitions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy and the Commander of SOCOM to develop implementation plans to coordinate and execute component initiatives to improve data on ACAT II and III programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would direct DOD components to evaluate data on ACAT II and III programs and report back plans to improve it. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components provide an update on their plans to improve the availability and quality of ACAT II and III data. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that based on an assessment of the information reported by the components, it does not plan to take any additional action to implement this recommendation. Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment reiterated in August 2019 that while DOD now provides a department-wide system to be used for collecting basic program data for ACAT II and III programs, it remains the responsibility of the military departments to enter complete and accurate data. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force and Commander of SOCOM to establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with APB requirements in DOD policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to APB requirements for ACAT II and III programs. DOD has taken some steps related to this recommendation. In September 2015, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested that DOD components review their mechanisms for establishing and enforcing the APB requirements for all ACAT II and III programs. In July 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed that, based on the results of these reviews, it does not plans to take any action to implement this recommendation. However, in 2019, DOD made its DAVE/DAMIR APB workflow tool available for military department use, and the Air Force elected to use the tool to create and track APBs for ACAT II and III programs. We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure compliance with relevant provisions of DOD acquisition policy with the purpose of improving DOD's ability to provide oversight for ACAT II and III programs, including those programs that may become MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to improve component procedures for notifying the Defense Acquisition Executive of programs with a cost estimate within 10 percent of ACAT I cost thresholds.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would issue guidance to DOD components related to notification requirements for programs approaching ACAT I cost thresholds. The Army and Navy have reiterated existing guidance and the Air Force is evaluating additional actions it might take to improve its notification procedures. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment confirmed in July 2018 that it does not plan to take additional actions to implement this recommendation, and as of August 2019, that office has not directed DOD components to improve their processes as we recommended .We have requested an update on DOD's recent actions to address this recommendation, but have not received information as of September 2020. We will continue to monitor DOD's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to require MAIS programs to establish their first acquisition program baseline within 2 years of beginning work on the programs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOD had made limited progress addressing our recommendation for business system programs; however, it had not addressed the recommendation for non-business system programs. Specifically, the department updated its instruction on business systems requirements and acquisition to include, among other things, guidance on establishing baselines against which to measure progress for developing needed business capability. However, the instruction did not explicitly require that a program baseline be established within 2 years. Specifically, according to the instruction, baselines may be established at the program level or at the release level (i.e., for a manageable subset of functionality in support of the business capability), within 2 years after programs have validated a business capability is needed and received approval to conduct solution analysis. If at the program level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of the first release or deployment. If at the release level, the baseline is to be set prior to the development of each release or deployment. In January 2020, the department also issued interim policy for software-intensive systems. However, while the interim policy requires program managers to develop an acquisition strategy that includes delivering software within one year from the date funds are first obligated to acquire or develop new software capability, the interim policy does not require software-intensive system programs to establish a program baseline within 2 years.

Recommendation: To improve the reliability and reporting of investment performance information and management of selected major investments, the Commissioner of the IRS should direct the Chief Technology Officer to modify reporting of the Affordable Care Act Administration testing status to senior management to include a comprehensive report on all impacted systems--including an explanation for why impacted systems were not tested at a particular level--and ensure this reporting is aligned with the manner in which testing is being performed.

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

Comments: IRS disagreed with this recommendation at the time we made it stating that it followed a rigorous risk-based process for planning the tests of ACA-impacted systems, including the types and levels of testing, and that it had comprehensive reporting for the filing season 2015 release, which included ACA impacted systems. However, as noted in our report, our review of ACA Testing Review Checkpoint reports and filing season reports, which officials stated were used to provide comprehensive reports to senior managers, did not identify the status of testing for all systems impacted by ACA Releases 5.0 and 6.0. In September 2017, IRS finished developing ACA and the investment transitioned to the operations and maintenance phase. We followed up with IRS to determine the extent to which it might be implementing the recommendation in light of this transition. In response, in June and December 2019 , IRS provided some documentation, including systems acceptance test plans and end-of-test results reports for ACA releases completed since September 2017. We reviewed the documentation provided and determined that it did not provide a status of testing for all systems impacted as we recommended. As of September 2020, we were following up with IRS to determine if the agency has other documentation provided to senior managers that addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help improve DOD's milestone decision process, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in collaboration with the military service acquisition executives, program executive officers, and program managers to, as a longer-term effort, select several current or new major defense acquisition programs to pilot, on a broader scale, different approaches for streamlining the entire milestone decision process, with the results evaluated and reported for potential wider use. The pilot programs should consider the following: (1) Defining the appropriate information needed to support milestone decisions while still ensuring program accountability and oversight. The information should be based on the business case principles needed for well-informed milestone decisions including well defined requirements, reasonable life-cycle cost estimates, and a knowledge-based acquisition plan. (2) Developing an efficient process for providing this information to the milestone decision authority by (a) minimizing any reviews between the program office and the different functional staff offices within each chain of command level and (b) establishing frequent, regular interaction between the program office and milestone decision makers, in lieu of documentation reviews, to help expedite the process.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and as of February 2020 the Services each identified one pilot program for implementation of streamlined acquisition processes. The Army chose the Improved Turbine Engine Program; the Navy chose the MQ-25 Stingray Unmanned Carrier Aviation Program; and the Air Force chose the MH-139 Grey Wolf Program. In July 2020, DOD indicated that specific streamlining initiatives for these programs will be developed in the near future after Executive Review at the Service level and after the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) has been informed.

Recommendation: To enhance State's efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and the SWT program from misuse, the Secretary of State should direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to establish a mechanism to ensure that sponsors provide complete and consistent lists of fees that participants must pay.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: In response to our recommendation that the State Department (State) establish a mechanism to ensure that sponsor provide complete and consistent lists of fees that exchange visitors on the Summer Work Travel program must pay, State acknowledged it collected such fee information in 2016. As July 18, 2018, we are awaiting State's review and analysis of this information to ensure the price lists are consistent and comprehensive, as well as published guidance it is sending to sponsors on how fee and cost information must be listed on their websites so that there will be consistency among sponsors. State indicated its fee study will take place in 2019 to cover the period of 2018. As of August 2020, State indicated that it planned to complete the fee study following final Summer Work Travel rule, pending OMB approval.

Recommendation: To enhance State's efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and the SWT program from misuse, the Secretary of State should direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to establish a mechanism to ensure that information about these participant fees is made publicly available.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: In response to our recommendation that the State Department (State) establish a mechanism to ensure that information about Summer Work Travel participant fees is made publicly available, State noted that it had published a notice for proposed rulemaking on January 12, 2017. When finalized, this would require each sponsor to include in its recruiting material, and post on its main Web site (e.g., with a visible link to such a page on the sponsors homepage), examples of the typical monthly budgets of exchange visitors placed in various regions of the United States to illustrate wages (based on the required weekly minimum of 32-hours of work at a typical host placement) balanced against itemized fees and estimated costs. Until State finalizes this rule, they cannot enforce this requirement. State anticipated releasing the final rule in the middle of 2019, pending OMB approval. As of August 2020 State has not issued a final rule; and OMB approval is still pending.

Recommendation: To enhance State's efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and the SWT program from misuse, the Secretary of State should direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to establish detailed criteria that will allow State to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of opportunities for cultural activities outside the workplace that sponsors provide to SWT participants.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: In response to our recommendation that the State Department (State) establish detailed criteria that will allow it to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of opportunities for cultural activities outside the workplace that sponsors provide to Summer Work Travel participants, State published a notice for proposed rulemaking on January 12, 2017. When finalized, this would require sponsors and their host entities to create cultural opportunities at least once per month. The proposed rule also notes that State will issue guidance outlining best practices for cross-cultural programming. As of August 2020 this is not finalized.

Recommendation: To help determine if programs are effective at supporting those individuals with serious mental illness, the Secretaries of Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and the Attorney General--which oversee programs targeting individuals with serious mental illness--should document which of their programs targeted for individuals with serious mental illness should be evaluated and how often such evaluations should be completed.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Reform Act of 2016 enacted in December 2016 included a requirement for HHS to develop a strategy for conducting ongoing evaluations of programs related to mental illness--including serious mental illness--and substance use disorders. HHS has said that it is in the process of preparing a report that identifies key programs and activities across the department, as well as summarizes data on those programs and develops criteria for use in prioritizing programs for evaluation. However, as of June 2019, HHS has not indicated that this report is complete or provided a copy to GAO. We will continue to monitor HHS's efforts in this regard and look for documentation of HHS plans for future evaluations of programs for individuals with serious mental illness.

Recommendation: To improve management and oversight of the WOSB program, and to help ensure the effective oversight of third-party certifiers, the Administrator of SBA should establish and implement comprehensive procedures to monitor and assess performance of certifiers in accord with the requirements of the third-party certifier agreement and program regulations.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA has taken some actions. For example, SBA created a standard operating procedure stating that third-party certifiers are subject to a compliance review by SBA at any time, and SBA has completed a review of the four authorized third-party certifiers. We continue to monitor SBA actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve management and oversight of the WOSB program, and to provide reasonable assurance that only eligible businesses obtain WOSB set-aside contracts, the Administrator of SBA should enhance examination of businesses that register to participate in the WOSB program, including actions such as: (1) promptly completing the development of procedures to conduct annual eligibility examinations and implementing such procedures; (2) analyzing examination results and individual businesses found to be ineligible to better understand the cause of the high rate of ineligibility in annual reviews, and determine what actions are needed to address the causes; and (3) implementing ongoing reviews of a sample of all businesses that have represented their eligibility to participate in the program.

Agency: Small Business Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In response to this recommendation, SBA has created a standard operating procedure that includes some procedures for annual eligibility examinations. We continue to monitor SBA actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to enable DOD to better identify, address, and mitigate performance issues with the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that could have an effect on affordability, as well as readiness, to establish a performance-measurement process for ALIS that includes, but is not limited to, performance metrics and targets that (1) are based on intended behavior of the system in actual operations and (2) tie system performance to user requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, plans are emerging between the services and the Joint Program Office on a path forward for ALIS, focusing on both the current iteration of ALIS and the future state. Going forward, the services and the Joint Program Office are developing plans for the necessary re-architecture of ALIS. Once these current improvements and future requirements are finalized, appropriate performance metrics, tying system performance in operations environments to user requirements, will be incorporated. As of January 2020, DOD officials stated that there was no update to this status. Although DOD has a way ahead as it relates to developing performance metrics for ALIS, DOD has yet to develop any metrics that are based on intended behavior of the system and tie system performance to user requirements. Until DOD takes this action, our recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to develop a high level of confidence that the aircraft will achieve its R+M goals, to develop a software reliability and maintainability (R+M) assessment process, with metrics, by which the program can monitor and determine the effect that software issues may have on overall F-35 R+M issues.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of July 2018, the department and the Joint Program Office, as part of their focus on agile software development, are working to incorporate software reliability and maintainability metrics into future software development and sustainment contracts. Some of the proposed metrics under consideration include: change failure rate; number of errors in developmental/user/operational testing; time to fix on critical errors; and mean time to restore. As of September 2019, DOD officials stated that there was no update to this status. Although attention is being paid to software Reliability & Maintainability, until DOD develops a process focused on software and its effects on overall Reliability & Maintainability issues, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To help DOD address key risks to F-35 affordability and operational readiness, and to improve the reliability of its O&S cost estimates for the life cycle of the program, the Secretary of Defense should direct the F-35 Program Executive Officer, to promote competition, address affordability, and inform its overarching sustainment strategy, to develop a long-term Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy to include, but not be limited to, the identification of (1) current levels of technical data rights ownership by the federal government and (2) all critical technical data needs and their associated costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. According to DOD officials, as of January 2020, in the updated F-35 Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) issued in January 2019, "Secure Use of Appropriate Technical Data" was one of the identified elements of success necessary to improve F-35 readiness and reduce sustainment costs. As part of the ongoing Plans of Action & Milestones (POAM) implementation process for the LCSP success elements, the F-35 Joint Program Office is working with the OEMs to determine the data rights the government already has, and to determine the specific technical data the government needs, and what it needs that data to accomplish. Significant progress has been made on both fronts with the prime contractor. We acknowledge that progress surrounding technical data rights is being made; however, until an Intellectual Property strategy is developed and released, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To better enable NCA to meet its mission of providing reasonable access to burial options at veterans cemeteries, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs to use the capability of NCA's existing software to estimate the served and unserved veteran populations using census tract data.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA disagreed with our recommendation. Although VA agreed that census tract data was more precise than the county-level data NCA was using, the department disagreed that using this more precise data to make decisions would lead to different outcomes. Instead, VA believed that NCA's methodology of using county-level data was sufficient for estimating the number of served and unserved veterans. We disagree with VA's assertion that using more precise data to identify served and unserved veterans would have no effect on the outcome of VA's decisions about cemetery locations or prioritization. In 2019, VA officials provided new information that they make decisions on cemetery locations based in part on the projected, county-level veteran population 30 years in the future. VA officials expressed concern that there would be too much uncertainty trying to perform such long-term population projections at the census tract level. We believe VA's position has some basis, and therefore have removed the priority designation from our 2014 recommendation. However, as we reported in 2019 (GAO-19-121), we continue to maintain the validity of our recommendation and believe that comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with estimates based on current county-level data would provide a useful supplement to the VA's use of long-term projected county-level population data.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Corps meets the statutory requirements related to deauthorization of projects, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine what projects are eligible for deauthorization, transmit the list to Congress, and publish projects that are deauthorized in the Federal Register once the new database includes all authorized projects.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The Corps developed a list of projects for deauthorization in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Section 1001, and provided the list to OMB for clearance on January 26, 2018. Additionally, on December 9, 2019, the Corps reported that it provided a list of projects eligible for deauthorization in FY 2020 to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works for review. Upon approval, the list will be sent to OMB for clearance. After receiving OMB clearance, according to the Corps, the list will be provided to Congress and the public in accordance with WRDA. As of July 2020, we are continuing to monitor the Corps' progress in implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Corps meets the statutory requirements related to deauthorization of incomplete water resources studies, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine what studies are eligible for deauthorization and transmit the list to Congress.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and as of December 2016, a task order has been awarded for a contractor to prepare a comprehensive inventory of studies authorized by statute. The Corps reported that once the comprehensive inventory of studies is complete, the Corps will develop policies and procedures for the study deauthorization process and those policies and procedures will be used to carry out the process of deauthorizing studies. In March 2020, the Corps reported that it was working to develop a scheduled for providing us with a list of studies eligible for deathorization. As of July 2020, we are continuing to monitor the Corps' progress in implementing the recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program planning and affordability, and to decrease the risk of cost and schedule overruns, NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to take the following action: To allow for a continued assessment of progress and affordability, NASA should structure each future increment of SLS capability with a total cost exceeding the $250 million threshold for designation as a major project as a separate development effort within the SLS program. In doing so, NASA should require each increment to complete both the technical and programmatic reviews required of other major development projects, per the agency's acquisition and system engineering policies.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. In January 2020, NASA stated that it planned to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To fully implement this recommendation, however, NASA needs to provide evidence that each capability upgrade is designated a major project and is required to complete the technical and programmatic reviews required of other major development projects.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program planning and affordability, and to decrease the risk of cost and schedule overruns, NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to take the following action: Provide decision makers with an informed basis for making investment decisions regarding the SLS program, NASA should identify a range of possible missions for each future SLS variant that includes cost and schedule estimates and plans for how those possible missions would fit within NASA's funding profile.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA agreed with this recommendation. In January 2020, NASA stated that new leadership at the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is conducting an internal independent assessment to assess the current schedule and technical approach for achieving a lunar landing by 2024, including the utilization of SLS for Artemis missions. With the insights gained from this assessment, NASA will move forward with planning and executing these missions through the annual budgeting process. To fully address this recommendation, NASA will need to identify cost and schedule estimates for possible SLS missions beyond its first exploration mission, now known as Artemis I, and how its planned missions would fit within NASA's funding profile.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should issue guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC including the extent to which other government funds can be used to leverage the NMTC by being included in the qualified equity investment.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not issued guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC, as GAO recommended in July 2014. However, Treasury has taken steps toward addressing this action. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), which administers the NMTC program, completed new empirical research assessing the extent to which other government programs are being combined with the NMTC. The findings of this research (issued in August 2017) indicate that some NMTC projects, especially those using other government funds to leverage the NMTC, potentially received more government funds than needed to close a financing gap. As of January 2020, CDFI Fund officials said that they intend to solicit public comments on additional data to be collected from the Community Development Entities before using these data to identify NMTC-financed projects that may have excessive public funding. Once fully implemented, these additional actions could help ensure that low-income community projects do not receive more government assistance than required to finance a project.

Recommendation: To reduce uncertainty about the expected cost and schedule of the U.S. ITER Project and its potential impact on the U.S. fusion program, once the ITER Organization completes its reassessment of the international project schedule, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Associate Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to use that schedule, if reliable, to propose a final, stable funding plan for the U.S. ITER Project, approve a performance baseline with finalized cost and schedule estimates, and communicate this information to Congress.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE approved a performance baseline for the first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project in January 2017 and communicated that performance baseline to Congress. However, as of June 2020, DOE has not set a performance baseline for the post-first plasma portion of the project. DOE officials told us the Administration was reviewing U.S. participation in ITER. They said that if, at the end of the review, the Administration decided to continue U.S. participation in ITER, then DOE would set a performance baseline for the post-first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project.

Recommendation: To reduce uncertainty about the expected cost and schedule of the U.S. ITER Project and its potential impact on the U.S. fusion program, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Associate Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to direct the U.S. ITER Project Office to revise and update the project's cost estimate to meet all characteristics of high-quality, reliable cost estimates. Specifically, the U.S. ITER Project Office should revise the project's cost estimate to ensure it is credible by including a comprehensive sensitivity analysis that includes all significant cost elements and conducting an independent cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE revised and updated the cost estimate for the first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project in November 2016. Officials reported that, as part of that update, the U.S. ITER Project Office completed a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and that the Office of Science's Office of Project Assessment had conducted a review of the revised cost estimate. However, as of June 2020, DOE had yet to revise and update the cost estimate for the post-first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project. DOE officials told us they planned to do so when they set a performance baseline for that portion of the project, which they expected to do if, at the end of an ongoing review, the Administration decided to continue U.S. participation in ITER.

Recommendation: To increase consistency and reduce time and predevelopment cost for NAHASDA grant recipients, an interagency effort similar to that of the federal infrastructure task force but specific to tribal housing should be initiated with participants from the Indian Health Service, HUD, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for all agencies overseeing tribal housing development. In addition, the agencies should determine if it would be appropriate to designate a lead agency in this effort.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2017, HUD provided us with documentation that an interagency Coordinated Environmental Review Process Workgroup was formed and included representatives from HUD, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, HHS, Interior, and the Department of Transportation. The workgroup focused on identifying measures that could be taken to coordinate agencies' environmental review processes within the existing framework, and in December 2015, presented 12 recommendations in a final report. The recommendations included developing common categorical exclusions; providing training for agency staff and tribes; continuing review of related environmental laws and authorities to identify opportunities for greater efficiencies; creating regional consortiums; and establishing an ongoing environmental review interagency workgroup. In addition, the workgroup developed a draft implementation plan, and drafted a Memorandum of Understanding whose stated purpose is "to further the shared goals of the parties to ensure comprehensive NEPA environmental reviews while facilitating access to federal assistance for housing and housing-related infrastructure projects in Indian Country involving multiple agencies by avoiding duplication of analyses and ensuring efficient environmental review processes for both tribes and agencies". In December 2018, HHS notified GAO that the final draft implementation plan remained under review by members of the interagency workgroup.

Recommendation: To increase consistency and reduce time and predevelopment cost for NAHASDA grant recipients, an interagency effort similar to that of the federal infrastructure task force but specific to tribal housing should be initiated with participants from the Indian Health Service, HUD, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for all agencies overseeing tribal housing development. In addition, the agencies should determine if it would be appropriate to designate a lead agency in this effort.

Agency: Indian Health Service
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2017, HUD provided us with documentation that an interagency Coordinated Environmental Review Process Workgroup was formed and included representatives from HUD, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, HHS, Interior, and the Department of Transportation. The workgroup focused on identifying measures that could be taken to coordinate agencies' environmental review processes within the existing framework, and in December 2015, presented 12 recommendations in a final report. The recommendations included developing common categorical exclusions; providing training for agency staff and tribes; continuing review of related environmental laws and authorities to identify opportunities for greater efficiencies; creating regional consortiums; and establishing an ongoing environmental review interagency workgroup. In addition, the workgroup developed a draft implementation plan, and drafted a Memorandum of Understanding whose stated purpose is "to further the shared goals of the parties to ensure comprehensive NEPA environmental reviews while facilitating access to federal assistance for housing and housing-related infrastructure projects in Indian Country involving multiple agencies by avoiding duplication of analyses and ensuring efficient environmental review processes for both tribes and agencies". In December 2018, HHS notified GAO that the final draft implementation plan remained under review by members of the interagency workgroup.

Recommendation: To increase consistency and reduce time and predevelopment cost for NAHASDA grant recipients, an interagency effort similar to that of the federal infrastructure task force but specific to tribal housing should be initiated with participants from the Indian Health Service, HUD, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for all agencies overseeing tribal housing development. In addition, the agencies should determine if it would be appropriate to designate a lead agency in this effort.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2017, HUD provided us with documentation that an interagency Coordinated Environmental Review Process Workgroup was formed and included representatives from HUD, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, HHS, Interior, and the Department of Transportation. The workgroup focused on identifying measures that could be taken to coordinate agencies' environmental review processes within the existing framework, and in December 2015, presented 12 recommendations in a final report. The recommendations included developing common categorical exclusions; providing training for agency staff and tribes; continuing review of related environmental laws and authorities to identify opportunities for greater efficiencies; creating regional consortiums; and establishing an ongoing environmental review interagency workgroup. In addition, the workgroup developed a draft implementation plan, and drafted a Memorandum of Understanding whose stated purpose is "to further the shared goals of the parties to ensure comprehensive NEPA environmental reviews while facilitating access to federal assistance for housing and housing-related infrastructure projects in Indian Country involving multiple agencies by avoiding duplication of analyses and ensuring efficient environmental review processes for both tribes and agencies". In December 2018, HHS notified GAO that the final draft implementation plan remained under review by members of the interagency workgroup.

Recommendation: To increase consistency and reduce time and predevelopment cost for NAHASDA grant recipients, an interagency effort similar to that of the federal infrastructure task force but specific to tribal housing should be initiated with participants from the Indian Health Service, HUD, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for all agencies overseeing tribal housing development. In addition, the agencies should determine if it would be appropriate to designate a lead agency in this effort.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2017, HUD provided us with documentation that an interagency Coordinated Environmental Review Process Workgroup was formed and included representatives from HUD, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), USDA, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, HHS, Interior, and the Department of Transportation. The workgroup focused on identifying measures that could be taken to coordinate agencies' environmental review processes within the existing framework, and in December 2015, presented 12 recommendations in a final report. The recommendations included developing common categorical exclusions; providing training for agency staff and tribes; continuing review of related environmental laws and authorities to identify opportunities for greater efficiencies; creating regional consortiums; and establishing an ongoing environmental review interagency workgroup. In addition, the workgroup developed a draft implementation plan, and drafted a Memorandum of Understanding whose stated purpose is "to further the shared goals of the parties to ensure comprehensive NEPA environmental reviews while facilitating access to federal assistance for housing and housing-related infrastructure projects in Indian Country involving multiple agencies by avoiding duplication of analyses and ensuring efficient environmental review processes for both tribes and agencies". In December 2018, HHS notified GAO that the final draft implementation plan remained under review by members of the interagency workgroup.

Recommendation: To ensure effective management and modernization of HUD's IT environment, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the department's Chief Information Officer to define the scope, implementation strategy, and schedule of its overall modernization approach, with related goals and measures for effectively overseeing the effort.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In July 2018, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) reported that the goal of the Chief Technology Officer's technical assessment of HUD's IT environment was to identify gaps and develop an implementation strategy and approach to establish a modernization roadmap. As of March 2020, OCIO reported that it had completed the technical assessment to identify gaps in IT. The department has also taken action to define an overall modernization approach, including the scope, implementation strategy, and schedule for modernizing its IT environment and systems. However, as of March 2020, HUD had not yet established measures for overseeing its modernization efforts.

Recommendation: To help improve the oversight and accountability of the military services' ROTC programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to coordinate with the military services to ensure that service ROTC guidance aligns with the updated DOD instruction.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. An April 2016 letter from the Director of Accession Policy, MPP, ASD(M&RA) to the DOD OIG states that the services reviewed and adjusted their current procedures and metrics in advance of the projected DODI publication date. However, in August 2018, we requested documentation of the services' efforts outlined in the letter to the DOD OIG and to verify that the services had taken the requisite steps to address our recommendation--namely, that their ROTC guidance aligned with the updated DODI. As of June 2020, DOD had provided documentation of updated service ROTC guidance, aligning with the updated DODI, for the Department of the Navy and the Air Force. However, according to DOD, the relevant Army Regulation update remains in draft, and thus the recommendation remains open. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to implement this recommendation and will update it as more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To help improve the oversight and accountability of the military services' ROTC programs, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military services, a strategy to periodically communicate with Congress and other key stakeholders on ROTC program performance.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation in written comments on our report. The March 2018 version of DODI 1215.08 directs the services to provide criteria, annual assessments, and decisions about establishment/disestablishment of ROTC units to institution presidents. It also states that the ROTC resources summary report will be the basis for responding to congressional and public inquiries. In addition, updated service guidance from the Department of Navy includes a provision for annual communication with host institutions. The DODI did not include and DOD has not developed a strategy to periodically communicate with Congress on ROTC program performance, as we recommended. According to DOD, as of July 2020, a congressional communication plan has been developed for the ROTC program, including dates and topics for discussion. However, DOD has not yet provided documentation of this plan, and, thus, the recommendation remains open. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to implement this recommendation and will update it as more information becomes available.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's corrosion-prevention and control program, and to enhance DOD in its oversight of the status and potential benefits of its equipment-related corrosion projects, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should require the Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, to revise the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan or other guidance to require that the military departments include in all follow-on reports the details of measures of achievement other than ROI, such as the features, results, and potential benefits of the project.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. As of March 2016, DOD had not implemented this recommendation and stated that the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation Strategic Plan currently provide sufficient guidance in this regard. As of March 2019, DOD has decided to take action to implement this recommendation. According to DOD Corrosion Office officials, they plan to list measures of achievement for the military departments to follow on the departments' corrosion project in a new DOD manual on corrosion. The Office's goal is to create this new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To enable the department to meet its Africa-related missions at the least cost, the Secretary of Defense should conduct a more comprehensive and well-documented analysis of options for the permanent placement of the headquarters for AFRICOM, including documentation as to whether the operational benefits of each option outweigh the costs. These options should include placing some AFRICOM headquarters personnel in forward locations, while moving others to the United States. In conducting this assessment, the Secretary should follow key principles GAO has derived for such studies, as well as principles found in DOD Instruction 7041.3, to help ensure that the results are comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. Should DOD determine that maintaining a location in Stuttgart is the best course of action, the Secretary of Defense should provide a detailed description of why the operational or other benefits outweigh the costs and benefits of relocating the command.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially agreed with GAO's recommendation. In its comments on GAO's September 2013 report DOD noted that to meet the requirements of the Budget Control Act of 2011 it would consider a wide range of options, and if any of these options required additional analysis of the location of AFRICOM headquarters, DOD would conduct a more comprehensive and well-documented analysis. However, in June 2019, DOD officials stated that the department had not conducted any additional analysis on the permanent placement of AFRICOM headquarters. Furthermore, DOD officials stated that AFRICOM would remain in Stuttgart, Germany, for the foreseeable future and no additional analysis was being planned. As of January 2020, DOD had not provided additional information to indicate progress on this recommendation. GAO maintains that such an analysis is needed and until the costs and benefits of maintaining AFRICOM headquarters in Germany are specified and weighed against the costs and economic benefits of moving the command, the department may be missing an opportunity to accomplish its missions successfully at a significantly lower cost.

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 enhance collaboration among the various entities involved in delivering employment services to military spouses and to better monitor the effectiveness of these services, the Secretary of Defense should consider incorporating key practices to sustain and enhance collaboration when developing and finalizing its spouse employment guidance, such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities and developing compatible policies and procedures.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2019, DoD has addressed some but not all aspects of this recommendation. According to DoD officials, the Spouse Education and Career Opportunities (SECO) programs have mechanisms for operating across agency boundaries by fostering open lines of communication and other collaborative practices. Specifically, according to DoD officials, these mechanisms provide SECO program and military service officials, who operate employment assistance programs at military installations, full knowledge of the relevant resources and activities focused on military spouse employment. For example, SECO provides quarterly webinars to military service employment program officials; and, leaders at SECO and installations have bi-monthly calls to provide updates on their respective initiatives. However, SECO has not fully developed guidance describing its overall strategy and how its various programs should coordinate to help military spouses obtain employment, which could include clarifying the roles and responsibilities of SECO and the military service programs. Our prior work has found that such documentation can help improve coordination by clarifying who does what in a partnership. Although DoD had intended to develop a separate policy (or DoD Instruction) for spouse employment, agency officials said they abandoned this effort. DoD plans to issue new guidance, but as of September 2019, DoD has not provided an update on this guidance or other examples of documentation that outline roles and responsibilities. Until DoD develops guidance, these programs face increased risk for poor coordination and program overlap.

Recommendation: To more effectively manage NDF's resources, increase program accountability, and ensure that NDF has the information necessary to improve program performance, the Secretary of State should direct ISN and NDF to periodically and systematically conduct and document program evaluations of NDF.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State concurred with the recommendation. As of September 2020, State had provided some evidence that State was going to conduct an organizational evaluation of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund as called for under the Department's evaluation policy. GAO is now in the process of reviewing the evidence that State has provided.

Recommendation: To improve NASA management and oversight of its spaceflight projects, and to improve the reliability of project EVM data, the NASA Administrator should direct the appropriate offices to modify the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5 to require projects to implement a formal surveillance program that: (1) Ensures anomalies in contractor-delivered and in-house monthly earned value management reports are identified and explained, and report periodically to the center and mission directorate's leadership on relevant trends in the number of unexplained anomalies. (2) Ensures consistent use of work breakdown structures (WBS) for both the EVM report and the schedule. (3) Ensures that lower level EVM data reconcile to project level EVM data using the same WBS structure. (4) Improves underlying schedules so that they are properly sequenced using predecessor and successor dependencies and are free of constraints to the extent practicable so that the EVM baseline is reliable.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that the reliability and utility of the EVM data needed to be improved but that it did not plan to implement a formal surveillance plan due to resource constraints. Since initially commenting on the report, however, in December 2018, NASA included an initiative in its Corrective Action Plan-a plan put in place in response to recent programmatic performance and NASA's designation on GAO's High-Risk List-to enhance EVM implementation. In June 2019, NASA issued EVM guidance that covered several items, including enhancing in-house and contracted earned value management surveillance and requiring EVM reporting at Baseline Performance Review. NASA officials reported that its near-term plans are well-defined to address the reliability of project EVM data, but they have expressed concerns about funding challenges and cultural resistance. To fully implement this recommendation, NASA will need to take action and provide documentary support for several of its identified planned next steps to enhance EVM surveillance. Without implementing proper surveillance, NASA may be utilizing unreliable EVM data in its analyses to inform its cost and schedule decision making.

Recommendation: To help ensure that EM more effectively manages all its projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management and the Director of the Office of Management, as appropriate, to provide the Office of Acquisition and Project Management with information on EM's project classification decisions to ensure that all capital asset projects have been appropriately classified and are managed in accordance with DOE Order 413.3B.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in fall 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation phase of cleanup. This policy will become an appendix in DOE's Order 413.3B. EM officials further stated that EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that would classify the remaining types of activities not covered by the Cleanup Project Management Policy, including what EM currently classifies as operations activities. EM plans to implement this policy by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that the performance measures used to evaluate the TAA for Firms program demonstrate program results and to help ensure that EDA can comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of the program, the Secretary of Commerce should broaden the program's evaluation approach, for instance, by developing additional quantifiable outcome-oriented performance goals and measures for key program areas and conducting further analysis of the data to isolate the impact of the TAA for Firms program from other influences, such as economic trends.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce concurred with our findings and recommendations. As of August 2020, EDA is taking actions to implement our recommendation. In 2012, EDA commissioned a study to inform the development of performance metrics and evaluation methods for the TAA for Firms program. Issued in October 2014, the study provided recommendations to EDA on potential performance metrics, tested the metrics by conducting a statistical analysis of TAA for Firms clients against a control group as well as a survey, and suggested data sources for conducting future evaluations of the TAA for Firms program. According to EDA officials, the study would help provide a foundation for more robust longitudinal performance measurement and enhanced policy analysis, thereby enabling EDA to more comprehensively evaluate the program. These officials noted that, in April 2017, the authors of the study finalized an operational toolkit containing recommended metrics and protocols for data collection and impact evaluation methods. In June 2017, EDA began to pilot test these recommended metrics and evaluation methods to improve program evaluation. EDA formed a working group in December 2017 to further refine the new evaluation system and metrics based on the results of the pilot tests. In May 2018, EDA's working group concluded the refinement of the metrics. In August 2018, EDA continued to collect data on these metrics from its grantees using a pilot survey and refined the metrics as EDA received additional responses and feedback about the pilot survey from grantees. As of August 2020, EDA had developed new data collection instruments that will gather data and information on the TAA for Firms program's outputs and outcomes. EDA intends to use the information collected from the new instruments to conduct program evaluations to better understand how program performance compares with performance goals and the impact of the TAA for Firms program, according to EDA officials. EDA is in the process of developing software to administer the instruments and an internal working group is guiding the implementation of the new data collection system. EDA expects to implement the new system in fiscal year 2020, according to EDA officials. We will continue to monitor Commerce's efforts to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the data available to manage and evaluate the TAA for Firms program, the Secretary of Commerce should develop a data system to consistently collect, maintain, and analyze sufficiently reliable and up-to-date data on program operations and participant firms.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce concurred with our findings and recommendations. As of August 2020, EDA is taking actions to implement our recommendation. According to EDA officials, in fiscal year 2017, EDA had developed an improvement plan for its agency-wide data system for collecting data on program operations. As of August 2020, EDA is working with a contractor to implement a new data system to assist in administering and managing the TAA for Firms program. For example, EDA officials expect the new data system to allow TAA Centers to submit participant firms' petitions for certification and adjustment proposals to EDA electronically for review and approval. In addition, these officials noted that the new data system will facilitate EDA's analysis of program performance. EDA anticipates that the new data system for the TAA for Firms program will be operational in fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor Commerce's efforts to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their timeliness and certainty, the EPA Administrator should require the Office of Research and Development, should different time frames be necessary, to establish a written policy that clearly describes the applicability of the time frames for each type of IRIS assessment and ensures that the time frames are realistic and provide greater predictability to stakeholders.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of March 2020, we have not seen a formal written memo from the IRIS program laying out this information - in detail - publicly, or how timelines for assessments are influenced by various criteria. While IRIS program staff have discussed this issue, no written guidance has been created. Such communication from the IRIS Program, as well as more frequent updates of the timelines for chemicals currently in assessment and projected starting dates for every chemical listed as "under assessment" is needed.

Recommendation: To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users--including stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public--the EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Research and Development to annually publish the IRIS agenda in the Federal Register each fiscal year.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has established the priority chemicals it is working on, and has published some timelines via the IRIS Program Outlook document. However, this information has not been published as an agenda in the Federal Register.

Recommendation: PPACA contained several important program integrity provisions for the 340B program, and additional steps can also ensure appropriate use of the program. Therefore, the Secretary of HHS should instruct the administrator of HRSA to finalize new, more specific guidance on the definition of a 340B patient.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2017, HRSA withdrew proposed guidance that included further specificity on the definition of 340B patient in response to the new administration's January 20 memorandum directing agencies to withdraw regulations that were pending before the Office of Management and Budget but had not yet been published in the Federal Register. In March 2018, HRSA told GAO that it continues to assess next steps with the Administration on the proposed omnibus guidance, which included the patient definition. In June 2019, HRSA reported that it is still working with the Department to determine next steps for this recommendation. In July 2020, HRSA reported that it conducted an evaluation of its audit process and other program integrity efforts and determined that guidance does not provide the agency with appropriate enforcement capability. Therefore, HRSA is not pursing new guidance under the Program at this time. The FY 2021 President's Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA comprehensive regulatory authority.

Recommendation: PPACA contained several important program integrity provisions for the 340B program, and additional steps can also ensure appropriate use of the program. Therefore, the Secretary of HHS should instruct the administrator of HRSA to issue guidance to further specify the criteria that hospitals that are not publicly owned or operated must meet to be eligible for the 340B program.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2017, HRSA withdrew proposed guidance that included additional specificity regarding hospital eligibility in response to the new administration's January 20 memorandum directing agencies to withdraw regulations that were pending before the Office of Management and Budget but had not yet been published in the Federal Register. In March 2018, HRSA reported that it believes it is unable to implement this recommendation without additional legislative authority because the statute does not speak to the issue raised in the recommendation. HRSA also noted that the FY19 President's Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA comprehensive regulatory authority, and that if this proposal is enacted, it could regulate on hospital eligibility. In June 2019, HRSA reported that it is still unable to implement this recommendation without additional legislative authority, though the President's FY 2020 Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA with such authority. In July 2020, HRSA reported that it conducted an evaluation of its audit process and other program integrity efforts and determined that guidance does not provide the agency with appropriate enforcement capability. Therefore, HRSA is not pursing new guidance under the Program at this time. The FY 2021 President's Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA comprehensive regulatory authority.

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: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to strengthen procedures in place to guide Reserve Banks' efforts to manage emergency program access for higher-risk borrowers by providing more specific guidance on how Reserve Bank staff should exercise discretion and document decisions to restrict or deny program access for depository institutions and primary dealers that would otherwise be eligible for emergency assistance.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to document a plan for estimating and tracking losses that could occur under more adverse economic conditions within and across all emergency lending activities and for using this information to inform policy decisions, such as decisions to limit risk exposures through program design or restrictions applied to eligible borrowing institutions.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to document the Federal Reserve Board's guidance to Reserve Banks on types of emergency program decisions and risk events that require approval by or consultation with the Board of Governors, the Federal Open Market Committee, or other designated groups or officials at the Federal Reserve Board.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the appropriate officials to define and implement a process, including defined criteria, for reselecting ongoing projects.

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

Comments: In March, 2017, IRS issued its Portfolio Investment Plan Process Description Manual for selecting and prioritizing new and ongoing operations support activities. The manual includes criteria for prioritizing selections; and provides for comparing assets against one another to create a prioritized portfolio; and ensuring executives' funding decisions are based upon the process for selecting and prioritizing activities. In March 2018, IRS updated the manual and also issued related detailed procedures. In May 2019, IRS stated that its Information Technology/Strategy and Planning group had developed a prioritization process and associated scoring criteria to help facilitate decision making for business systems modernization programs, projects, and capabilities. The agency noted that improvements were being made to the process and full implementation was anticipated for June 2019.In April 2020, IRS informed us that it had moved its target for fully implementing the recommendation to November 2020. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: In light of the need for accurate and complete information on children's access to health services under Medicaid and CHIP, the requirement that states report information to CMS on certain aspects of their Medicaid and CHIP programs, and problems with accuracy and completeness in this state reporting, the Administrator of CMS should work with states to identify additional improvements that could be made to the CMS 416 and CHIP annual reports, including options for reporting on the receipt of services separately for children in managed care and fee-for-service delivery models, while minimizing reporting burden, and for capturing information on the CMS 416 relating to children's receipt of treatment services for which they are referred.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2019, CMS stated that the agency's long-term plan is to use the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) to analyze information on children's receipt of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services. As of June 2020, CMS had developed a new CMS-416 reporting form that gives states the option of having CMS calculate the measures for the report using T-MSIS. CMS stated that it intends to implement this option for states for fiscal year 2020 CMS-416 reports, which are due in April 2021. As of August 2020, the new CMS-416 form was undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act review. CMS is also exploring using T-MSIS to generate the Core Set of Children's Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid and CHIP, some of which are included in the CHIP annual report. As of June 2020, CMS had begun a pilot test to generate five of the Core Set measures using 2018 T-MSIS data. GAO considers this recommendation open and will continue to monitor CMS's progress towards its long-term goal of using T-MSIS to monitor children's receipt of EPSDT services.

Recommendation: To better ensure that requirements for tenant eligibility are met across the FLH portfolio, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of RHS to require its loan servicers to use the Systematic Alien Verification and Entitlements (SAVE) program administered by the Department of Homeland Security to verify tenant's residency status during supervisory reviews.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, according to officials, USDA has proposed revisions to its regulations that will incorporate the usage of Systematic Alien Verification and Entitlements (SAVE) program. The proposed rule is under interagency review with the Office of Management and Budget. Publication of the final rule is planned to occur in fiscal year 2022 according to USDA officials. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of RHS to better utilize available data on demand for the FLH program--such as systematically reviewing local market analyses, further analyzing occupancy data on a statewide, regional, or national level, and retaining and analyzing application information--to help target available funding to areas of greatest need.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, according to officials, USDA has conducted an analysis of occupancy data and information retained in program applications, to determine how funding can be allocated to better meet market demand, and support community revitalization and affordable housing needs. Officials planned to use the results of this analysis to revise USDA's Farm Labor Housing Notice for Solicitation of Applications. The notice is currently undergoing an internal clearance process, which USDA anticipates completing by fiscal year 2022. We will continue to track the agency's progress on this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document program-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study with regard to the other weapon systems identified--specifically, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, CH-53K helicopter, Joint High Speed Vessel, Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle--and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the CPC programs for these systems.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented program-specific recommendations from the corrosion study for the other weapon systems identified in its report. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. These actions may improve the corrosion prevention and control planning for the weapon systems identified in DOD's study. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation at the time of our report but as of March 2019, has since decided to take action to implement it. According to Corrosion Office officials, they interacted with two of five weapon-systems programs on corrosion-related matters. One of these weapon-system programs, per Corrosion Office officials, was eventually canceled. In addition to updating the Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and Equipment in 2014, officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure). Also, according to Corrosion Office officials, procedures for evaluating acquisition programs will be included in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal of completing this instruction update and creating the new manual is by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure sufficient follow-up to DOD's corrosion study, the Secretary of Defense should direct the USD (AT&L) to document Air Force-and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study and establish a process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of these services' corrective actions.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2015, DOD had not documented Air Force- and Navy-specific recommendations flowing from the corrosion study. However, DOD updated its Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook in 2014 and, according to officials, is working to update DOD Instruction 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure. Further, the Air Force and the Navy have both taken actions to address the DOD-wide recommendations from the corrosion study. These actions may improve corrosion prevention and control planning for Air Force and Navy programs. As of March 2019, Corrosion Office officials stated that they are planning to further update DOD Instruction 5000.67 (Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure) or other appropriate guidance related to the process or procedures for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of Corrosion Prevention Control planning for weapon systems, particularly related to how the military services will accomplish this within their increased weapon system oversight role. In addition, per Corrosion Office officials, this information will be addressed in the new DOD manual on corrosion. The Corrosion Office's goal to complete this instruction update and create the new manual by the end of calendar year 2020. We will monitor the extent to which DOD implements this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help improve the effectiveness of the Bureau's outreach and enumeration efforts, especially for HTC populations, should they be used again in the 2020 Census, and improve the Bureau's marketing/outreach efforts, the Secretary of Commerce should require the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to develop mechanisms to increase coordination and communication between the partnership and local census office staff. Possible actions include offering more opportunities for joint training, establishing protocols for coordination, and more effectively leveraging the partnership contact database to better align partnership outreach activities with local needs.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In 2011, the Bureau reported on the agency's assessment of the partnership program. In September 2014, the Bureau's Path to the 2020 Census, identified the Partnership Program as one of the best methods for communicating the importance of response and states its intent to map out details about the Partnership Program in early 2016. As of March 2018, Bureau officials said they were developing coordination mechanisms between partnership and Area Census Office staff for the 2020 Census. For example, the Bureau updated a form it had used during the 2010 Census to track partnership outreach activities to help facilitate information sharing within the Bureau and said it plans to make additional updates. In March 2019, the Bureau informed us that it is assigning at least one partnership specialist to each census office manager to help address this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, the Bureau had not put in place expectations for how Partnership staff should support area census office staff. We also reported that pluralities of area census office managers we surveyed in March 2020 were dissatsified with the level of clarity of roles and responsibilities of Partnership staff, as well as the level of communication and coordination between Partnership and office staff. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau will need to take such steps as documenting for partnership specialists and their area census office manager how they are expected to work together and other significant mechanisms that would increase effectiveness of coordination and communication between partnership and local field office staff.

Recommendation: To help improve the effectiveness of the Bureau's outreach and enumeration efforts, especially for HTC populations, should they be used again in the 2020 Census, and to improve some of the Bureau's key efforts to enumerate HTC populations, the Secretary of Commerce should require the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to determine the factors that led to the staffing issues observed during SBE and take corrective actions to ensure more efficient SBE staffing levels in 2020.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open

Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In September 2012, the Bureau issued its assessment of the Service Based Enumeration Program. The assessment reported on the number of individuals counted and the complexities of this special enumeration activity. The assessment did not address the Bureau's approach to staffing this special enumeration activity. In its 2020 Census Operational Plan, issued in October 2017, the Bureau provided a high level overview of reengineered field operations plans but did not provide details on special enumeration efforts. In April 2018, the Bureau provided us with its planned staffing ratios for its Service-Based Enumeration activity for the 2020 Census in comparison to those used in the 2010 Census, as well as results of its 2016 Census Test of SBE activity. As of August 2020 we have ongoing work that will be examining implementation of peak field operations and providing updates to this recommendation. In order to fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to demonstrate that its planning for how it will determine staffing levels for SBE takes into account the factors that led to inefficient staffing allocation previously.

Recommendation: To help improve the effectiveness of the Bureau's outreach and enumeration efforts, especially for HTC populations, should they be used again in the 2020 Census, and to improve some of the Bureau's key efforts to enumerate HTC populations, the Secretary of Commerce should require the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to evaluate the extent to which each special enumeration activity improved the count of traditionally hard-to-enumerate groups and use the results to help inform decision making on spending for these programs in 2020.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department generally agreed with this recommendation. In 2012, the Bureau reported on assessments of many 2010 special enumeration activities such as the Service-Based Enumeration and the Be Counted/Questionnaire Assistance Center Programs. These assessments revealed the number of persons counted and spending for the special enumeration activities. Separately, the Bureau issued results of the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Program that described the level of coverage of various hard-to-enumerate populations generally without attributing coverage to specific enumeration activities. Since 2015, the Bureau has issued annual updates of its 2020 Census Operational Plans, which have not provided details of plans for various special enumeration activities. In April 2017 Bureau officials provided us with evaluation results of its 2010 communication efforts and other documents related to ongoing efforts to reduce errors in the census. As of August 2020, we are in communication with Bureau officials about steps they are taking to implement this recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, the Bureau needs to demonstrate how it is relying on data about how various special enumeration activities of historically hard-to-enumerate groups contributed to census coverage in 2010 to inform its design for the 2020 Census.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should establish an IRS-wide strategy with goals, which may need to be developed incrementally, to coordinate and plan ongoing and future efforts to identify and pursue network tax evasion. The strategy should include: (1) assessing the effectiveness of network analysis tools, such as yK-1; (2) determining the feasibility and benefits of increasing access to existing IRS data, such as scanning additional data from Schedule K-1, or collecting additional data for use in its network analysis efforts; (3) putting the development of analytical techniques and tools that focus on networks as the unit of analysis, such as GraphQuery, on a specific time schedule; and (4) deciding how network efforts will be managed across IRS, such as whether a core program team or management group is needed.

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

Comments: As of December 2019, IRS had not created a documented, agency-wide strategy to manage network noncompliance efforts; however, IRS has developed elements of the strategy, as GAO recommended in September 2010. For example, IRS has made and continues to focus on making iterative improvements to its network analysis tools. Although these improvements are not contained within an IRS-wide strategy, they relate to assessing effectiveness. For example, IRS has taken steps to assess its most predominantly used network analysis tool. As part of an annual survey, IRS asked users of this tool about its effectiveness and to suggest improvements. IRS also certified the tool as conforming to agency guidelines and requirements for usefulness. However, IRS has not created a strategic approach on managing network compliance efforts across IRS that includes time frames for network analysis tool development, and the agency has no plans to do so. With a more strategic approach, IRS would be better positioned to address network noncompliance across the agency.

Recommendation: Should the program be extended beyond 2009, to ensure that the maximum amount of capital ends up in low-income community businesses, Congress may wish to consider offering grants to CDEs that would provide the funds to low-income community businesses. If it does so, Congress may wish to require Treasury to gather appropriate data to assess whether and to what extent the grant program increases the amount of federal subsidy provided to low-income community businesses compared to the NMTC; whether the grant program otherwise affects the success of efforts to assist low-income communities; and how costs for administering the program incurred by the CDFI Fund, CDEs, and investors would change. One option may be for Congress to set aside a portion of funds to be used as grants and a portion to be used as tax credit allocation authority under the current structure of the program in a future allocation round to facilitate comparison of the two program structures.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action has been identified as of March 2020. Section 141 of division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, extended NMTC through 2020 (Public Law 116-94). However, this act did not offer grants in lieu of credits, as GAO suggested in January 2010. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the cost of this extension to be approximately $1.5 billion. Offering grants in lieu of NMTCs could result in a greater portion of the federal subsidy reaching low-income community businesses.

Recommendation: Because EPA alone cannot address the complexities of the nation's challenges in addressing environmental health risks for children, Congress may wish to consider re-establishing a government-wide task force on children's environmental health risks, similar to the one previously established by Executive Order 13045 and co-chaired by the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Congress may wish to consider charging it with identifying the principal environmental health threats to children and developing national strategies for addressing them. Congress may also wish to consider establishing in law the Executive Order's requirement for periodic reports about federal research findings and research needs regarding children's environmental health.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, we have not identified actions by the Congress to establish in law requirements such as those in Executive Order 13045.

Recommendation: To help DOD obtain reasonable assurance that all active and Reserve component servicemembers to whom the PDHRA requirement applies are provided the opportunity to have their health concerns identified, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the military services should take steps to ensure that PDHRA questionnaires are included in DOD's central repository for each of these servicemembers.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments to this report, the Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. On October 2009, DOD's Force Health Protection and Response Office sent a memo to each of the military service Surgeons General emphasizing the need for the post-deployment health reassessment (PDHRA) to be offered to all service members who are eligible to complete the assessment. In 2010, DOD's noted that the services would work with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) repository to ensure PDHRAs are submitted correctly, without transmission errors. DOD's 2011 case records showed that the Air Force and Army had developed data verification processes to ensure that AFHSC received PDHRAs. Further, the Defense Medical Data Center (DMDC) had planed to create a file consisting of the date of deployment for deployed personnel, and that the file would be available to the services in order to match DMDC with data from each of the service-specific systems, in accordance to requirements. In September 2011, although DMDC and the services had agreed to match rosters of deployed service members, there were still inconsistencies in deployment dates. In March 2012, DOD was still verifying data inconsistencies which, until resolved, leads to inaccurate reporting based on errors in the deployment dates. As of September 2019, DOD has not provided information or documentation to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Bureau's use of its master schedule to manage the 2020 decennial census, the Secretary of Commerce should require the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau to include estimates of the resources, such as labor, materials, and overhead costs, in the 2020 integrated schedule for each activity as the schedule is built, and prepare to carry out other steps as necessary to conduct systematic schedule risk analyses on the 2020 schedule.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule (GAO-14-59), Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. Bureau officials announced they had completed the 2020 Census schedule in July 2016, and have since periodically described their intent to link resources to activities within their schedules. However, as of May 2018, when the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation. In July 2018 (GAO-18-589) we reported again on the status of the Bureau's scheduling, stating that when the Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the schedule more effectively as a management tool. The Bureau took steps toward assigning resources to its master activity schedule for the 2020 Census, but effectively ran out of time to do so. Assigning resources to large complex schedules is easier to do early in schedule development process, as we recommended the Bureau do in 2009 for its 2020 Census schedule. This recommendation will remain open pending the Bureau taking steps in developing its 2030 schedule with appropriate resources linked to it.

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.

Recommendation: To provide transparency and accountability over the payments FEMA makes to WYOs for expenses and profits, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, FEMA, to determine in advance the amounts built into the payment rates for estimated expenses and profit.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: According to FEMA officials, FEMA is responding to this recommendation as part of its development of a final rule on WYO compensation practices, required by the Biggert-Waters Act. FEMA's current payment rates do not explicitly consider WYO insurers' actual expenses and profit. FEMA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Ruling on July 8, 2019 seeking comments by September 6, 2019 regarding possible approaches to incorporating actual flood insurance expense data into the WYO payment methodology. As of February 2020, FEMA officials said that they were reviewing comments received in response to the July 2019 notice.

Recommendation: To provide transparency and accountability over the payments FEMA makes to WYOs for expenses and profits, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, FEMA, to annually analyze the amounts of actual expenses and profit in relation to the estimated amounts used in setting payment rates.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: According to FEMA officials, FEMA is responding to this recommendation as part of its development of a final rule on WYO compensation practices, required by the Biggert-Waters Act. However, GAO has reported that an annual analysis of the WYO insurers' actual expenses and profit could be regularly performed in relation to FEMA's existing payment methodology. FEMA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Ruling on July 8, 2019 seeking comments by September 6, 2019 regarding possible approaches to incorporating actual flood insurance expense data into the WYO payment methodology. As of February 2020, FEMA officials said that they would complete an annual analysis of WYO data by the end of fiscal year 2020 and that they were reviewing comments received in response to the July 2019 notice.

Recommendation: To provide transparency and accountability over the payments FEMA makes to WYOs for expenses and profits, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, FEMA, to consider the results of the analysis of payments, actual expenses, and profit in evaluating the methods for paying WYOs.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: According to FEMA officials, FEMA is responding to this recommendation as part of its development of a final rule on WYO compensation practices, required by the Biggert-Waters Act. FEMA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Ruling on July 8, 2019 seeking comments by September 6, 2019 regarding possible approaches to incorporating actual flood insurance expense data into the WYO payment methodology. As of February 2020, FEMA officials said that they were reviewing comments received in response to the July 2019 notice.

Recommendation: To increase the usefulness of the data reported by WYOs to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and to institutionalize FEMA's use of such data, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, FEMA, to take actions to obtain reasonable assurance that NAIC flood insurance expense data can be considered in setting payment rates that are appropriate, including identifying affiliated company profits in reported flood insurance expenses.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: According to FEMA officials, FEMA is responding to this recommendation as part of its development of a final rule on WYO compensation practices, required by the Biggert-Waters Act. FEMA can also take actions, in addition to any actions related to the rule, to develop method(s) for obtaining reasonable assurance that NAIC data is accurate and usable for setting payment rates before implementation of a new compensation methodology. FEMA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Ruling on July 8, 2019 seeking comments by September 6, 2019 regarding possible approaches to incorporating actual flood insurance expense data into the WYO payment methodology. As of February 2020, FEMA officials said that they were reviewing comments received in response to the July 2019 notice.

Recommendation: To increase the usefulness of the data reported by WYOs to the National Association NAIC and to institutionalize FEMA's use of such data, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary of Homeland Security, FEMA, to develop comprehensive data analysis strategies to annually test the quality of flood insurance data that WYOs report to NAIC.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: According to FEMA officials, FEMA is responding to this recommendation as part of its development of a final rule on WYO compensation practices, required by the Biggert-Waters Act. FEMA can also take actions, in addition to any actions related to the rule, to develop and implement data analysis strategies to annually test the quality of flood insurance data WYO insurers report to NAIC before implementation of a new compensation methodology. FEMA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Ruling on July 8, 2019 seeking comments by September 6, 2019 regarding possible approaches to incorporating actual flood insurance expense data into the WYO payment methodology. As of February 2020, FEMA officials said that they were reviewing comments received in response to the July 2019 notice.

Recommendation: To support the triennial review program's goal of having grantees consistently meet more federal requirements, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FTA to ensure that additional outcome and quality performance measures are balanced with the existing measures for assessing the timeliness of the triennial review program so that one priority is not emphasized at the expense of others.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) anticipates adding a performance measurement, called reduction in repeat findings, that relates to assessing the quality of the review. This has been added to FTA's new Quality Review program focused on improving its Triennial Review program.

Recommendation: To address the current information gap in Regulation SHO for prime brokerage arrangements and mitigate the impact of any unintended consequences caused by SEC rules, as well as ensure consistent implementation of SEC rules by the industry, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should finalize, in an expedited manner upon finalization of the temporary rule, the revised 1994 Prime Broker Letter.

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 4, 2019, the revised Prime Broker letter has not been finalized. Staff from the Reg SHO team in SEC's Trading and Markets division stated that they have regularly and continuously asked the industry for comments on the Prime Broker Letter without receiving any real progress. Their most recent request for comments was emailed to industry counsel on May 22, 2019. Industry counsel acknowledged the request but have yet to provide comments.

Recommendation: To simplify the burden that the corporate exemption places on payers to distinguish payees' business status and also provide greater information reporting, Congress may wish to consider requiring payers to report payments to corporations on the form 1099 MISC, as we previously suggested and as proposed in the Bush Administration's budget.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action has been taken, as of March 2020, to require payers engaged in a trade or business to report on payments to corporations for services, thereby reducing these payers' burden to determine which payments require reporting, as GAO recommended in January 2009. Reporting of third-party information is a powerful compliance tool, and eliminating the reporting exemption for payments to corporations would be a cost-effective way to improve voluntary compliance.

Recommendation: To gauge the extent of 1099-MISC payer noncompliance and its contribution to the tax gap, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should, as part of future research studies, develop an estimate of 1099-MISC payer noncompliance.

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

Comments: According to IRS, developing such an estimate requires a multi-pronged approach and a large amount of coordinated effort. One prong is to determine the extent of filing compliance among employers. A second prong would determine the extent to which 1099-MISC payers properly report their payments. Starting with the Tax Year 2001 individual income tax reporting compliance study, the National Research Program (NRP) office has been collecting some data related to Form 1099-MISC compliance, from both the payer and payee perspectives. Additional data were generated by the NRP reporting compliance study for employment tax. As part of the NRP employment tax research, IRS examiners were to review taxpayers' Form 1099 filing compliance. Data collected from these studies should shed some light on whether employers are appropriately reporting required payments on Form 1099-MISC. As of March 2020, IRS had completed its preliminary analysis and expected to complete more comprehensive analysis of the NRP employment tax data by May 2020. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's progress.

Recommendation: To gauge the extent of 1099-MISC payer noncompliance and its contribution to the tax gap, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should, as part of future research studies, determine the nature and characteristics of those payers that do not comply with 1099-MISC reporting requirements so that this information can be factored into an IRS-wide strategy for increasing 1099-MISC payer compliance.

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

Comments: IRS researchers collected data on 1099-MISC reporting as part of its National Research Program (NRP) study on employment taxes, a program that involved examinations of a sample of tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2010. As part of the NRP employment tax research, IRS examiners were to review taxpayers' Form 1099 filing compliance. Collecting data on this issue will enable IRS to study the nature and characteristics of payers that do not comply with 1099-MISC reporting requirements. As of March 2020, IRS had completed its preliminary analysis and expected to complete more comprehensive analysis of the NRP employment tax data by May 2020. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should direct FEMA to take steps to ensure that its rate-setting methods and the data it uses to set rates result in full-risk premiums rates that accurately reflect the risk of losses from flooding. These steps should include, for example, verifying the accuracy of flood probabilities, damage estimates, and flood maps; ensuring that the effects of long-term planned and ongoing development, as well as climate change, are reflected in the flood probabilities used; and reevaluating the practice of aggregating risks across zones.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In April 2018, FEMA officials told us they had begun to redesign NFIP's risk rating system to help ensure policy rates better reflect the risk of flooding. The redesign, known as Risk Rating 2.0, includes efforts to use catastrophe models, stochastic approaches, and updated map information to better reflect the variation in flood risk. These reforms are also intended to improve how FEMA's rating process accounts for general and specific factors that affect flood probabilities and damage. While FEMA initially announced that new rates for all single-family homes would go into effect nationwide on October 1, 2020, it announced in November 2019 that it would defer implementation to October 1, 2021. FEMA said this would allow it to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the proposed rating structure so as to protect policyholders and minimize any unintentional negative effects of the transition, and that the new implementation date would cover all NFIP policies.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should direct FEMA to ensure that information is collected on the location, number, and losses associated with existing and newly created grandfathered properties in NFIP and to analyze the financial impact of these properties on the flood insurance program.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, FEMA officials said they had finished identifying properties with grandfathered premium rates and that they planned to analyze their economic implications as part of their efforts to update their premium rate setting approach, known as Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA plans to implement this redesign on October 1, 2021.

Recommendation: In order to develop an approach to decision making and the development of evidence on high-clockspeed trends affecting highway safety that are characterized by uncertainty, the Secretary of Transportation should consider and evaluate practices and principles for making decisions under conditions of uncertainty and for using data in such decision making and, on that basis, develop an approach to guide decision making on high-clockspeed trends that, although somewhat uncertain, may affect highway safety.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In GAO-09-56, GAO recommended the Secretary of Transportation consider and evaluate practices and principles for making conditions under uncertainty and for using data in light of issues encountered in developing evidence on high-clockspeed trends affecting highway safety that are characterized by uncertainty. GAO had studied driver distraction involving electronic devices, in particular cell phones with texting capability and identified these evolving electronic devices as a high clockspeed trend. DOT reports several actions on distracted driving, specifically: (1) an Executive Order to federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles; when using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; or while driving privately owned vehicles when they are on official business; (2) the Secretary called on state and local governments to (a) make distracted driving part of their state highway plans, (b) pass state and local laws against distracted driving in all types of vehicles, (c) back up public awareness campaigns with high-visibility enforcement actions; (3) the Secretary directed the Department to establish an on-line clearinghouse on the risks of distracted driving and also (4) pledged to continue the Department's research on how to best combat distracted driving. DOT also notes that the Department's www.distraction.gov website provides information on the latest data on distracted driving and that 34 states have passed laws against texting and driving since the 2009 announcement by the Secretary of DOT.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Transportation should evaluate whether or not new approaches to data collection are needed to better track new trends related to highway safety.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT has not responded to this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to improve the information available to the Congress for reauthorization, the Secretary of Transportation should analyze and report on trends currently anticipated to affect highway safety through 2020 and beyond in a systematic fashion--including information on high-clockspeed trends, discussion of evidence about these and other individual trends, their implications and potential interactions, and DOT responses.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT has not responded to this recommendation, but DOT announced a distracted driving summit September 30-October 1, 2009, with a limited number of invitees, and invited the GAO Assistant Director on this report to participate. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated that the purpose of the summit is to "to address the dangers of text-messaging and other distractions behind the wheel." The summit will include "senior transportation officials, elected officials, safety advocates, law enforcement representatives and academics" who will convene in Washington, DC "to discuss ideas about how to combat distracted driving."

Recommendation: In order to improve the information available to the Congress for reauthorization, the Secretary of Transportation should determine, in consultation with relevant congressional committees, schedules for periodic reporting that will be sufficiently frequent to update the Congress on fast-changing trends.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: DOT has not responded to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide clarity for which taxpayers with rental real estate activity must report expense payments on information returns and to provide greater information reporting, Congress may wish to consider amending the Internal Revenue Code to make all taxpayers with rental real estate activity subject to the same information reporting requirements as other taxpayers operating a trade or business.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action had been taken, as of January 2020, to make owners of rental real estate subject to the same payment reporting requirements regardless of whether they engaged in a trade or business under current law, as GAO recommended in August 2008. Changing reporting requirements and holding taxpayers with rental real estate to the same filing requirements as taxpayers whose activities are considered a trade or business would provide clarity about who is required to file, which would improve tax compliance.

Recommendation: To develop timely chemical risk information that EPA needs to effectively conduct its mission, the Administrator, EPA, should require the Office of Research and Development to re-evaluate its draft proposed changes to the IRIS assessment process in light of the issues raised in this report and ensure that any revised process periodically assesses the level of resources that should be dedicated to this significant program to meet user needs and maintain a viable IRIS database.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of February 2020, EPA officials indicated that the IRIS Program had almost completed internal review of a "Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments," intended to guide staff through the sequential stages of the IRIS assessment process and ensure consistency across assessments. The Handbook, when finalized and used by staff, codifies the agency's effort to reevaluate their assessment process, but doesn't address the resources that should be dedicated to the IRIS Program. A workforce plan that includes both staff and budget resources consistent with user needs is necessary. As we reported in March 2019, the program has made strides utilizing project management software and project management techniques that enable the IRIS Program to better plan assessment schedules and utilize staff. However, we also reported in March 2019 that the President's budget requests since fiscal year 2018 have repeatedly cut the budget by as much as 40 percent for the Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) area, of which IRIS is a part. While these cuts were not enacted by Congress, the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request again cuts the HERA program by 34 percent, or approximately $12.7 million dollars. These cuts could have an impact on the IRIS program's ability to meet EPA program and regional office needs, if enacted by Congress.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of the federal investment in surface transportation, meet the nation's transportation needs, and ensure a sustainable commitment to transportation infrastructure, Congress may wish to consider reexamining and refocusing surface transportation programs to be responsive to these principles so that they institute tools and approaches to that emphasize the return on the federal investment.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not yet acted on this recommendation. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), signed into law in December 2015, is due to be reauthorized in fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of the federal investment in surface transportation, meet the nation's transportation needs, and ensure a sustainable commitment to transportation infrastructure, Congress may wish to consider reexamining and refocusing surface transportation programs to be responsive to these principles so that they address the current imbalance between federal surface transportation revenues and spending.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not yet acted on this recommendation. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), signed into law in December 2015, did not address the current imbalance between federal surface transportation revenues and spending. The Act is due to be reauthorized in fiscal year 2021.

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider requiring increased attention to fiscal responsibility in the approval of section 1115 Medicaid demonstrations by requiring the Secretary of HHS to improve the demonstration review process through steps such as (1) clarifying criteria for reviewing and approving states' proposed spending limits, (2) better ensuring that valid methods are used to demonstrate budget neutrality, and (3) documenting and making public material explaining the basis for any approvals.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, there had been no legislation introduced to require HHS to improve the Medicaid demonstration review process. However, HHS has taken some action to address some aspects of GAO's recommendation. CMS established new policies that addressed certain problems GAO had identified and issued written guidance on the process and criteria used to approved states' proposed spending limits. Not all problems identified by GAO were addressed by the new CMS policy, thus legislation to require HHS to improve the Medicaid demonstration review process, as GAO recommended in January 2008, continues to be a viable matter for consideration.

Recommendation: Congress may wish to consider addressing whether demonstrations that allow states to operate public managed care organizations and retain excess revenue to support programs previously funded by the state--including the Vermont demonstration--are within the scope of the Secretary of HHS's authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, Congress had not passed legislation in response to our matter for congressional consideration.

Recommendation: In order to improve freight mobility by more clearly defining the federal role in the freight transportation network and to begin to align federal investments with economically significant national benefits, the Secretary of Transportation should develop with Congress and public and private sector stakeholders a comprehensive national strategy for freight transportation. This national strategy should include defining the federal role and national interests in freight transportation, including economically-based and objective criteria to identify areas of national significance for freight transportation and to determine whether federal funds are required in those areas.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: To fully implement this recommendation, DOT should complete and issue a National Freight Strategic Plan. As part of the development of the National Freight Strategic Plan, DOT should include defining the federal role in freight transportation, including economically-based and objective criteria to identify areas of national significance for freight transportation and to determine whether federal funds are required in those areas. As of February 2020, DOT had not issued the National Freight Strategic Plan and DOT officials said they were planning to issue the strategy by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: In order to improve freight mobility by more clearly defining the federal role in the freight transportation network and to begin to align federal investments with economically significant national benefits, the Secretary of Transportation should develop with Congress and public and private sector stakeholders a comprehensive national strategy for freight transportation. This national strategy should include establishing the roles of regional, state, and local governments, as well as the private sector.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: To fully implement this recommendation, DOT should complete and issue a National Freight Strategic Plan. As part of the development of the National Freight Strategic Plan, DOT should include establishing the roles of regional, state, and local governments, as well as the private sector. As of February 2020, DOT had not issued the National Freight Strategic Plan and DOT officials said they were planning to issue the strategy by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: In order to improve freight mobility by more clearly defining the federal role in the freight transportation network and to begin to align federal investments with economically significant national benefits, the Secretary of Transportation should develop with Congress and public and private sector stakeholders a comprehensive national strategy for freight transportation. This national strategy should include using new or existing federal funding sources and mechanisms to support a targeted, cost-effective, and sustainable federal role in freight transportation.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: To fully implement this recommendation, DOT should complete and issue a National Freight Strategic Plan. As part of the development of the National Freight Strategic Plan, DOT should include using new or existing federal funding sources and mechanisms to support a targeted, cost-effective, and sustainable federal role in freight transportation. As of February 2020, DOT had not issued the National Freight Strategic Plan and DOT officials said they were planning to issue the strategy by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: To enhance the transparency of CMS oversight and clarify and communicate the types of allowable state financing arrangements, the Administrator of CMS should provide each state CMS reviews under its initiative with specific and written explanations regarding agency determinations on the allowability of various arrangements for financing the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments and make these determinations available to all states and interested parties.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: CMS has taken steps to provide states with specific and written explanations regarding agency determinations on whether various arrangements for financing the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments are allowable and making those determinations available to states and interested parties. In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program. The proposed rule would establish new policies and codify existing policies related to the sources of funds that states use to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments. For example, the rule is intended to provide CMS and states with better information and guidance to identify existing and emerging state financing issues, provide more clarity on allowable financing arrangements and promote state accountability. GAO will continue to monitor the status of the proposed rule, as well as review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to put the Emergency Relief program on a sound financial footing, Congress may wish to consider the expected future demands on the program and reexamine the appropriate level and sources of funding--including whether to increase the $100 million annual authorized funding and whether the Highway Trust Fund, the General Fund, or some combination would allow the program to accomplish its purpose in a fiscally sustainable manner.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not yet taken action on this recommendation. The Emergency Relief Program is due to be reauthorized in 2020.

Recommendation: Congress may also wish to consider tightening the eligibility criteria for Emergency Relief funding, either through amending the purpose of the Emergency Relief program, or by directing FHWA to revise its program regulations. Revised criteria could include limitations on the use of Emergency Relief funds to fully finance projects with scope and costs that have grown as a result of environmental and community concerns.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of November 2019, Congress has not yet taken action on this recommendation. The Emergency Relief Program is due to be reauthorized in 2020.

Recommendation: To better account for physicians practicing in underserved areas through the use of J-1 visa waivers, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should collect and maintain data on waiver physicians--including information on their numbers, practice locations, and practice specialties--and use this information when identifying areas experiencing physician shortages and placing physicians in these areas.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with our recommendation, commenting that the department's goal was to assure that the limited resources of the J-1 visa waiver program and other programs addressing areas and populations with limited access to health care professionals are targeted most effectively. In 2013, HHS indicated that it was considering the best approach to collect information to identify J-1 visa physicians practicing in underserved areas. As of February 2018, however, HHS reported that it does not have the capacity to track physicians practicing in underserved areas through the use of J-1 visa waivers, citing reasons such as the number of federal entities and states involved in the process. While we recognize that collecting and maintaining these data requires coordination with other agencies, we continue to believe that without data on waiver physicians, HHS--the federal agency with primary responsibility for addressing physician shortages--will lack the information needed to consider waiver physicians working in underserved areas when placing providers in these areas under other programs. As of August 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of actions taken to implement this recommendation. We are leaving this recommendation open until the department collects and maintains data on waiver physicians and considers those physicians in its efforts to address physician shortages.